HomeMy WebLinkAbout120390 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 1990 - 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes
1.1 Minutes of November 05, 1990.
1.2 Minutes of November 19, 1990
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Case No. Summary Vacation of Jefferson Avenue
Vacate existing Jefferson Avenue alignment.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.
Applicant:
Representative:
Proposal:
Location:
Recommendation:
Extension of Time PM 23~30 Revised No. 1
Bedford Properties, Inc.
J. F. Davidson
1st extension of Time for PM 23q30
Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads
Approval
Case No.
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No.
Bedford Properties Inc.
Herron F, Rumansoff Architects, Inc.
27u,75 Ynez Road
1996 Sq. Ft. Addition to the Tower Plaza
Approval
Steve Padovan
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Planner:
Plot Plan No. :~1 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059
Change of zone No. 6 and No. 7
Preferred Equities
Markham F, Associates
Ridge Park Drive, Southwest side approximately seventy
(70) feet east of its intersection with Rancho California
Road.
Plot Plan No. 3~ and Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059
Construct one ( 1 ) Seven-Story Office Building containing
102,000 square feet; one ( 1 ) 7,000 square foot Restaurant;
one (1) 7,872 square foot Restaurant; and one (1) Four-
Story parking structure containing 159,u,u,0 square feet on
5.51 acres.
Change of Zone No, 6
Change the maximum height limitation contained in the
development Standards for the I-P (industrial Park) zone
on this site from 50 to 75 feet.
Change of Zone No. 7
Amend Ordinance No. 3L18, Section 10.u, (b), to increase
the maximum height permitted, within the I-P ( Industrial
Park ) zone, above 75 feet.
Continue to December 17, 1990
Oliver Mujica
Case No.
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 179
Johnson and Johnson
Lusardi Construction Company
Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way
Construct a 57,102 Sq. Ft. Industrial/Office Building on
a LL 5 acre site.
Continue to December 17, 1990.
Oliver Mujica
Case No.
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Tract Map 265u,9 and Plot Plan 1086~
Boyd and Iszler
Markham and Associates
South of Rancho California Road, East of Moraga Road
Construct 260 Townhouses on a 22.22 Acres site.
Recommend Approval
Oliver Mujica
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Location:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Conditional Use Permit No. ~
Tomond Properties
Markham F, Associates
Southeast Corner of SF 79 and Bedford Court
For the construction of a 92~, Sq. Ft. Gasoline Service
Station and Mini-Market with beer and wine sales.
Continue to December 17, 1990.
Steve Padovan
Plot Plan 157
McDonald~ Corporation
Construct a children~s playland at the existing fast-food
restaurant site.
28100 Front Street
Approval
Karen Castro
10.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 1165~
Carlos and Emma Alvafez
Andrews/Rothenburger, Inc.
Northwest of Del Rio Road, between Calle Cortez and Las
Haciendas St.
Develop four mixed use Retail/Industrial Office Buildings
on approximately 2.5 acres.
Approval
Richard Ayala
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 126
Bank of Commerce
Architects Coombs. Mesquita, Inc.
Easterly side of Jefferson abuttin9 the northerly side of
Santa Certrudis Creek
To construct a Two Story Bank with 10,620 Square Feet of
Floor Area and a Two Story Office building with 6,480 of
floor area.
Approval
Scott Wright
12.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Parcel Map No. 25687
Jonah Management
Loren Phillips and Associates
28450 Felix Valdez Avenue
To convert an existing commercial structure to a 2 Unit
condominium for ownership purposes.
Approval
Scott Wright
13.
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Tentative Parcel Map 2~038, Plot Plan 76
Leland\Sun9 Development
Leland\Sung Development
Moreno Drive, Adjacent to Motel 6
Subdivide 4. 99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 Unit
Motel and convert an existing building into a Restaurant
Approval
Mark Rhoades
Case No.:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Tentative Tract Map 25603
Tierra Investment, Walt Dixon
Walt Dixon
Margarita Road, approximately 1500 feet easterly of Moraga
Road
57 Lot Multiple Family Subdivision of 20.8 acres
Recommend Denial
Steve Jiannino
15, Planninq Director Report
16o Other Business
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: December 17, 1990, 6: 00 PM, Vai I Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
5J/Ib
plancomm/agn 12 / 3
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
HELD NOVEMBER 19# 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
at 6:05 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dennis
Chiniaeff.
PRESENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute
Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the meeting for public cogent at 6:10
P.M.
SAL MUNOZ, P.O. Box 3000, Temecula, commended the Commissioners on
their performance as the Planning Commission for the City of
Temecula. He suggested that the Commission might like to make a
brief summary of their position on an item before taking the vote
so that the City Council has a clear idea why an item was approved
or denied.
1. MINUTES
1.1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5~ 1990.
The Commissioners did not receive a copy of the November
5, 1990 minutes in their agenda packages. No action was
taken.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised that Item No. 7 would be continued to
the meeting of December 3, 1990.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. FIRST EXTENEION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT RAP 23299
Proposal for first extension of time Tract 23299, 232 Unit
Condominium project located south of Highway 79,
approximately one-quarter mile west of Margarita Road.
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that there were some
pcminll/19/90 -1- 11/28/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19, 1990
discussions with the the applicant relating to this item
and item No. 3 which needed to be addressed by the
Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh.
JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the City Attorney's office had
discussions with the applicant regarding the extension of
time vesting for tentative tract map 23299 and the
applicant provided documents to the City Attorney's office
along with documents from the Riverside County Flood
Control District. Based on these documents, the applicant
has requested that this project be processed through as a
moratorium under the Sub-Division Map Act 66452.6 B & F.
John Cavanaugh stated that the City Attorney's office
was in agreement with the applicant that a moratorium
does exist due to the fact that the Flood Control District
had issued a letter stating that because the project is
along the flood plain and channel improvements are
required to be proposed under the Assessment District 159
404 permits are to be issued by the Army Corp of
Engineers and California Fish and Game. He stated that
applications have been submitted; however, they have not
been processed by these agencies. Until the permits can
be issued, the Time Extension has been placed on hold.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the time period for the
approval of the Tentative Map was put on hold and
therefore has not expired until the moritorium has ended.
John Cavanaugh stated that the City Attorney's office
has been told that these permits are close to being
issued. John Cavanaugh advised the Commission that they
would be taking no action on this item at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5
Proposal to change the zoning of 221.2 acres of land from
R-R to R-3, R-4, and R-5, located on the south side of
State Highway No. 79 between Margarita Road and Pala Road.
steve Jiannino provided the staff report on this item.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFFquestioned the Deputy City Attorney on
the Commission's ability to approve a zone change without
an underlying plan.
JOMMCAVANAUGH stated that the issue before the Commission
was a request for zone change and it is the position of
pcmin11/19/90 -2- 11/28/90
P~ING
COM!IBSION MINUTEB
NOVEMBER 19, 1990
the Commission to make a recommendation to the City
Council based on the information that has been provided to
them in the staff report. He added that the Commission
could request that staff bring back this item with more
information necessary for the Commission's approval of
this item.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned the Commission's ability to
approve the zone change of R-3 and R-4 with the R-5 area
being held up by the moritorium.
GARY THORNHILL agreed that the Commission and staff had a
difficult decision. He added that the project has already
begun grading based on prior approvals and, if the
Commission were to deny the zone change, the applicant
could not record the Tentative Map.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the City was responsible
for inspecting the grading on the project.
Deputy city Engineer DOUG STEWART stated that the County
was inspecting the grading on this project.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt that staff should
provide the Commission with a copy of the approved
tentative maps for this project in order for them to make
a logical decision and to know that the proposals are
consistent with the existing maps which were approved and
are currently in effect. He suggested that the item be
continued to allow staff to provide the maps on the
project.
GARY THORNHILL stated that the applicant proceeded with
the project based on the permits that had been issued.
He added that if the Commission made a recommendation to
approve the re-zoning, they were essentially approving the
project; however, if they made the recommendation to not
approve the re-zone, then the project would be denied.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:40 P.M.
ALEXANDER URQUHART, 5950 E1 Camino Real, Ste. 2000,
Carlsbad, representitive of Crosby Mead and Benton,
representing the applicant Presley of San Diego. Mr.
Urquhart stated that when Presley purchased the site
they were very surprised to find that the zoning had
not been finaled; however, they feel that the zoning
they have proposed is within the SWAP designation and
is less dense than the surrounding properties.
pcminll/19/90 -3- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19~ 1990
R~Y CASEY, 15010 Avenue of Science, San Diego,
representative of Presley of San Diego, provided the
Commission with a overall site map of the original
Tentative Map and reflecting landscape areas.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the landscaping shown
was a condition of the approved Tentative Map.
RAY CASEY stated that they have approved landscape
plans for the entire project from the County of
Riverside, which are conditions of the Tentative Map.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the flood control channel
issues were not resolved and the multiple family area
of the project is put on moritorium, will you receive
approval letters from the Army Corp of Engineers and
California Fish and Wildlife for any of the other
areas facing the channel.
HAY CASEY stated that he understood the same issues
pertained to the other areas as well. He stated that
he had letters from the Army Corp of Engineers and the
Assessment District saying that they were very close to
issuing their approvals.
LETTIE BOGGS, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula,
representative of the Temecula Valley School District,
addressed the Commission with the concern that there
has been no school site designated within this
development even though there had been a ten acre
site set aside in the Environmental Impact Study.
There is only one other school site that might
possibly house the students generated from this
development; however, that is not an geologically
approved site. She stated that the mitigation fees
generated from this project would build approximately
one-eighth of a school needed to house students from
this project. Those students would fill one-half of
a school. The school district is experiencing problems
with the increasing densities within the City and
providing facilities to house students generated by
the higher density developments.
CRAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised Ms. Boggs that the Commission
could not condition a zone change for a designated school
site.
LETTIE BO~GS stated that it was the School Districts
understanding of the Environmental Impact Study that a
school site had been set aside.
pcmin11/19/90 -4- 11/28/90
PLANNING COIOflS2ION MINUTE2
NOVF, MBER 19~ 1990
HAY CASEY stated that they had preliminary discussions
with the school district and had discussed the possibility
of providing excess school mitigation fees through the
Mello-Roos.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed concern that the project
was this far along and still had many unresolved issues
such as the school site allocation and the flood control
channel being included in the gross acreage of the project
which is unusable land.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if there was any way that
the Commission could address the school site through the
conditions.
GARY THORNHILL stated that they could not condition the
project for an allocated school site. He stated that the
county had already approved the project.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked the applicant what they were
proposing to do to mitigate the school issue.
HAY CASEY stated that they would be willing to pay
additional fees and paying their school mitigation fees up
front which could possibly help complete schools in the
surrounding projects sooner.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked the Assistant City Attorney if
the applicant had started their grading based on the
approvals they had received from the County and the City
chooses to lower the density, would the City be placed
in any jeopardy.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that they should be
looking at the re-zone notwithstanding the progress that
has been made, and determine if this zone change request
is feasible.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed concern for the City's
liability if the developer was not able to build their
project.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that the
determination the Commission is making would be based
on solid legal grounds and that the City was placed
in this position after the fact.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that the staff report
report reflected that the Tentative Map called for the
improvement of the bridge at Pala Road which was to be
pcmin11/19/90 -5- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~ COMMI2elON MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19~ 1990
completed by Assessment District 159; however, he
understood that Assessment District 159 would no longer be
constructing those improvements. He also questioned the
proposed traffic mitigation which included signalization
of an intersection. He asked staff which intersection
that referred to.
DOUG STEWART stated that Assessment District 159 was no
longer completing the improvements to the bridge at Pala
Road. He asked Kirk Williams to address the issue of the
traffic signals before explaining what was being proposed
for the bridge construction. KIRK WILLI/%MS stated that
Tentative Map 23267 would be required to put in the
signal at the new alignment of Pala Road and Highway 79
after the bridge is built. He added that for Tentative
Map 23267, they working with the applicant's traffic
engineer for signalization of the on and off ramps at
Highway 79 and Pala Road, Highway 79 and Pala Road and
Highway 79 and Loma Linda. For Tentative Map 23299,
the applicant would be required to put in signals at
Highway 79 and Lime Street and Highway 79 and
Margarita Road.
DOUG STEWART stated that there were many discussions at
this time between the staff, County, and the applicants of
Murdy Ranch. He stated that there are two possibilities:
one being that the bridge may be included in a
supplemental assessment district for the Murdy Ranch
project; the other being that when Murdy Ranch comes
before the Council, it will be conditioned to enter into
a Reimbursement Agreement with the City and the Murdy
Ranch Specific Plan would be required to build the bridge
and they would be reimbursed from adjacent developments
for contribution for the need of the bridge.
COMMISSIONER HOASLAND stated the staff report reflected
that the bridge would be constructed before any occupancy
of these projects.
DOUe STEWl%RT stated that he does not believe the projects
are conditioned for completion of the bridge prior to
occupancy; however, the Engineering Department intended
for this to be a condition when the extension of time
came before the Commission. He added that the traffic
study and the environmental impact study required the
bridge be in place.
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to close the public hearing at
7:05 P.M. and continue Change of Zone No. 5 to address
the issue of adequate school mitigation and the report
pcminll/19/90 -6- 11/28/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER ~9# 1990
from the Army Corp of Engineer as well as California
Fish and Game and the issue of the completion of the
bridge at Pala Road, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
COMMI88IONER HOAGLAND expressed a desire to see how
the zoning fits with the Tentative Maps to form a
unified project.
COMMISSIONER FORD added that he felt the southern portion
of the project could move ahead once the flood control
issue was approved.
The motion carried unanimously.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 7
Proposal for motorcycle sales in an existing commercial
building located at the northeast corner of Ynez Road
and Solana Way.
Steve Jiannino provided the staff report on this item.
He advised the Commission that staff had added a
condition that there be no outdoor sales or storage
or motorcyles, etc., at this facility.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M.
HOWARD LEVY, 853 S. Spaulding Drive, Los Angeles,
applicant, expressed his concurrence to the
conditions of approval and added that the facility
would include the repair of boats and outboard engines.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF clarified with the applicant
that there would be no outdoor sales or storage at this
facility.
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to close the public hearing at
7:20 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 7, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND and carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
pcminll/19/90 -7- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTEB NOVEMBER 19, 1990
5. PLOT PLAN 18 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 9
Proposal to construct a 46,613 square foot shopping center
on a 5.1 acre site located at the northwest corner of
Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item.
He indicated that the proposal is for the construction
of the retail site (Building C) and the building pads for
the bank (Building B) and the restaurant (Building A).
The recommendation would be for the approval of the site
design layout and the construction of Building C. Staff
also recommends when the development for Building A and
B is submitted, the applicant file a Plot Plan application
so that they can be reviewed. He stated that although
the Traffic Engineering Department has indicated they have
no problems with the drive-thru facility at the proposed
bank, staff sees some potential problems and would like to
review the detailed plans of the building along with a
traffic study. He added that the code requires four
loading spaces for the overall development and the
applicant is proposing one loading space. After
discussion with the applicant about the type of deliveries
they will be receiving, staff has determined that the
four loading spaces should be provided, possibly using
some of the other parking spaces.
KIRK WILLIAMS stated that Transportation Engineering has
reviewed the site and determined that there is no major
reason for concern with the access/egress of the proposed
drive-thru location. They do concur that when the plot
plan is submitted, they would like to look at it to ensure
there is no problem. He added that the location of the
loading docks does not appear to propose any problems.
COMMISSIONER NOAGLAND questioned the requirements of
Condition No. 29.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that this was a standard condition.
off-site requirements. G/~RY THORNHILL indicated that
he didn't believe there were any off-site improvements
required and this condition could be deleted. KIRK
WILLI/%MS stated that there would be some additional
off-site work required on Rancho California Road, as
a result of the Lyndie Lane and Rancho California Road
intersection, engineering is requiring a operational
signal resulting in off-site improvements on the south
side of Rancho California Road.
DOU~ STEWART added that this site was in the benefit
pcmin11/19/90 -8- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~
CO!(XISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19# ~990
reimbursement district for Margarita Village Development
Company would be doing the street improvements and the
applicant would be constructing the signals.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the project was
conditioned to construct a landscape median.
KIRK WILLIAMS stated that there was a Engineering
Department condition that a median be constructed.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the applicant was paying
any mitigation fees for the ramp signals at Highway 15
and Rancho California Road.
KIRK WILLIAMS stated that they would be paying signal
mitigation fees. DOUG STEWART stated that the Margarita
Village Development Company was already conditioned to
complete those improvements; however, they were
conditioned to pay signal mitigation fees and capital
improvement fees.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M.
MARK ASPENSON, Winchester Development, 41530 Enterprise
Circle South, Suite 206, Temecula, developer of the
project. He stated that they were building the median
on Rancho California Road and they were designing and
improving the signal at Lyndie Lane and Rancho California
Road. He addressed some concerns about the height of the
wall behind the project and indicated that they had
planned extensive landscaping for this area. He stated
that they are willing to work with staff to address any
concerns they have.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND asked if the area behind the retail
building was a walk way.
MARK ASPENSON stated that this was a loading area.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned the lighting and landscaping
proposed for the back side of the walls and the
irrigation. He expressed a concern for run-off and
suggested a drip system.
MARK ASPENSON stated that they had submitted a conceptual
landscape plan and would be willing to work with staff.
GARY THORNHILL added that the applicant will be required
to submit a final landscape plan.
pcmin11/19/90 -9- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~ COtOtlSSION MINUTES
NOV~ER 19~ 1990
COMMISSIONER FORD also questioned a lighting plan for the
back side of the building so as not to interfere with the
nearby residential area.
MARK ASPENSON stated that they would be required to use
low pressure lights due to the Palomar Observatory
Ordinance.
GARY THORNHILL suggested enhancing Condition No. 7
indicating all lighting will be hooded or directed away
from neighboring residents.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he would like the applicant
to utilize some taller specimen trees along the back side
of the building to softer the height of the building. He
also questioned their sign proposal.
MARK ASPENSON again stated that they were willing to work
with staff to address all of the Commission's concerns and
that a sign program would be coming under a separate
proposal.
COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a desire to see the wording on
Condition No. i to read "for a proposed 6,500 square foot
restaurant and a proposed 4,831 square foot bank".
GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that there are no
approvals for the proposed buildings A and B and the
applicant will have to come back to the Commission with
the Plot Plans.
MARK ASPENSON indicated that they had not received a copy
of the Conditions of Approval.
GARY THORNHILL asked if the agent or the applicant had
received a copy of the Conditions. MR. ASPENSON stated
that they had not received them.
The Commission agreed to take a ten minute recess to allow
the applicant to review the Conditions of Approval.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 7:50
P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 P.M.
MARK ASPENSON expressed concurrence with the Conditions of
Approval as presented.
GARY THORNHILL stated that while the applicant is
providing 286 parking spaces on the site plan there is a
condition to provide four loading spaces, which allows
them flexibility to convert six of those spaces into
pcminll/19/90 -10- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~ COMMIBflON MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19# 1990
three loading spaces; also, he recommended amending
Condition No. 18 to not allow outdoor storage as follows:
Add a sentence stating no outdoor storage or trash except
in the designated containers provided on the site plan.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at
8:10 P.M. and adopt Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 18 and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving
Plot Plan No. 18 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 9 including
modifications of Condition No. 1 to read "proposed 6,500
square foot restaurant and proposed 4,831 square foot
bank" and Condition No. 18 to include a statement
indicating no outdoor storage or trash except the
designated trash containers, seconded by COMMISSIONER
FAHEY and carried unanimously.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8/PLOT PLAN 6353 REVISED PERMIT
11
Proposal to convert an existing theater into a tire sales
and auto repair use located at 27415 Jefferson Avenue in
the Winchester Square shopping center.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item.
He stated that staff's recommendation is for overhead
doors limited to the rear of the building. He stated
that with re-design the applicant could utilize stacking.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M.
JACK HUNTER, 900 W. Alameda Avenue, Burbank, representing
Winston Tire Company, requested the Commission approval
of the project as proposed which includes two overhead
doors at the front of the building. He stated that they
were in opposition to Condition No. 10 which restricted
the overhead doors to the back of the building. He said
that limiting the access to the rear of the building would
decrease their efficiency by 30%.
CHAlltMANCHINIABFFquestioned storage of down vehicles and
used tires.
MR. HUNTER stated that these are stored inside the
building.
JIM BORDEN, 422 Calle Vista Torito, San Clemente,
pcminll/19/90 -11- 11/28/90
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19~ 1990
representing Safelite Glass Company, who is proposing to
lease a portion of this building, spoke in opposition of
limited rear entrance doors only. He stated that it was
corporate policy to lease space that gave them front
and rear access and they are looking at this condition
in considering this lease property.
DAN PERLMUTTER, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1490,
Newport Beach, property manager for the center. He
stated that they have had a difficult time finding a
suitable tenant and were looking at a restaurant and
a recreation center at one time. He stated that he
felt that the Winston Tire store would be a good
tenant for the building and feels that the front bays
would have no adverse effects on the center. He
added that this particular portion of the center is
essentially dead and other tenants of the center have
encouraged the conversion of the theater into the auto
tire and glass shops.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked Mr. Perlmutter if they
would consider lowering the sign on the building to
below the eve line.
MM. PERLMUTTER indicated that they would be willing to
consider that.
DAVID LOWRY, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 206, Temecula,
owner of the shopping center adjacent to Winchester Plaza
spoke in support of the proposed conversion of the theater
and suggested that the Commission look at improving the
landscape islands to shield the overhead doors at the
front of the building.
BOB THOMPSON, 27443 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula,
veterinary tenant at the center located about four doors
down from the vacant theater spoke in favor of the
proposed use of the building.
JIM FRANK, 27495 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, tenant of
the center Sun City Optical, spoke in favor of the
proposed conversion of the theater into the auto tire and
glass shop and stated that had no problem with overhead
doors at the front of the building.
MIKE GRAY, Riverside County Fire Department, advised the
Commission that the rear alley was an emergency fire road
and there could be no cars parked which would restrict
their access. He indicated that he could foresee problems
if the access to the building is limited to the rear
pcmin11/19/90 -12- 11/28/90
PLAIqlqlN~ COMMZHSXON MTNUTE8 HOVEMBER Xg~ X990
doors and that he would like to see a condition
restricting rear parking.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND recommended closing the access to
through traffic at the front of the building and utilize
3 or 4 spaces on the south side of the first island to
enlarge that island.
DAN PERLMUTTER expressed a desire not to eliminate any
parking spaces and suggested one-way traffic in front of
the tire store.
MIKE GRAY stated that they could not make a one-way lane
unless there was a way to re-route the traffic.
GARY THORNHILL stated that staff's main concern would be
with the view and they could enhance the landscape
planters without closing any traffic lanes.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFP asked if the fire department would
accept closing off the front of the building to through
traffic.
MIKE GRAY stated that they would have no problems with
that.
GARY THORNHILL expressed concern for closing off this
area and suggested enhancing the landscaping in front of
the building as well as the landscape planters.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved close the public hearing at
9:00 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving
Revised Permit Plot Plan No. 6353, Winchester Square,
deleting Condition No. 10 as submitted bystaff and adding
a new Condition No. 10 requiring the applicant to submit
a landscape plan to staff that would include screening of
the building and applicant and staff coordinate with the
traffic and fire departments to see if there is any need
to mitigate traffic safety measures for the front of the
building and add Condition No. 11 ensuring no parking in
the rear alley, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAREY.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR added that she would like to see the
landscape planter extended.
COMMISSIONER HOA~LAND remained with his motion but
emphasized the Commission's intent to see the front of
the building closed to through traffic unless not
acceptable to the fire and traffic departments and
pcmin11/19/90 -13- 11/28/90
PLANNINQ CO1~I22ION MINUTE2 NOVEMBER 19# 1990
that staff address the landscaping of this area with
the applicant.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7. PLOT PL~NO. 179
Proposal to construct a 57,102 square foot industrial/
office building on a 4.5 acre site located at the
southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to continue this item to
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
December 3, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY and
carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
8. TRACT RAP 26549 AND PLOT PLAN 10864
Proposal to construct a 260 townhouse development on
22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road,
East of Moraga Road.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item.
He stated that there was a drainage issue and the
applicant has proposed to drain towards Rancho California
Road and the southerly portion of the property is proposed
to drain to the southwest corner of the project. He added
that the applicant will be required to obtain the proposed
storm drain as well as oversizing the drainage structures
to divert the run-off from other properties to the storm
drain. He also stated there was an issue that the school
district wanted to address relating to an unimproved
pedistrian walkway within the project to be utilized by
children walking to Vail Elementary School. He stated
that the school district has been in contact with SCE and
property owners to the south and the flood control
district to acquire the necessary easements. The
applicant is proposing a ten foot wide easement along the
westerly property line which would extend from Moraga Road
along the southerly property line and end at the adjoining
pcminll/19/90 -14- 11/28/90
PL3NNIN~
CONNISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19~ 1990
southerly property. He added CSD was not prepared to
indicate if they were willing to accept this area or an
easement. He stated that Condition No. 25 of the Plot
Plan approval did not apply, and should be deleted, and
added to staff responses to Environmental Analysis,
No. 11, should indicate under SWAP it would be permitted
to have 365 units.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that they were adding Condition No.
22B to Tentative Map No. 26549 and 77B to Plot Plan No.
10864 stating that, in the event the improvements to the
south side of Rancho California Road have not been
completed by the Margarita Village Benefit District prior
to occupancy, the developer shall construct these required
off-site improvements.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the condition requiring
the applicant to obtain a drainage easement prior to
recordation of the final map and what would result if the
applicant could not get the easement.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that the applicant could not
record their map.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDasked for clarification of Condition
No. 39.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that staff has been working with
the applicant's engineer to restrict as much drainage to
the south as possible and direct flow to the southwest
corner by way of a drainage system. They had been
discussing a sump system to do this. The engineer is
now proposing two storm drain systems, one on the private
drive, oversized by 50% and another system on the south
property line running down to the southeast corner.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND commented that staff should review
Condition No. 9 of the Plot Plan. He suggested that the
parenthesis from asphaltic to base should be deleted as
well as the remainder of the paragraph beginning with
"decomposed". Commissioner Hoagland also asked for
clarification of Condition No. 26.
OLIVER MUJICA stated that the first set of parenthesis
should have been commas'.
CHAII~MAN CHINIAEFF questioned if there will be a
signal at "A" Street and if there will be road
improvements to Via Las Colinas.
pcmin11/19/90 -15- 11/28/90
COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEKBER 19# 1990
KIRK WILLILMS stated that there would be a right-in and
right-out signal at "A" Street. He explained that the
main course of traffic would be through Rancho California
Road and Morago and Via Las Colinas would carry a small
amount of the main traffic.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if there was any report on
the needs of the community for multiple family dwellings
and what could be expected from a study of this type.
GARY THORNHILL stated that the Lightfoot study would
address this and that it would recommend a fee structure.
C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:30
P.M.
LETTIE BOGGS, Temecula Valley Unified School District
representative, stated that the School District is in
disagreement with the Environmental Assessment that
there is no impact from this project to the schools.
She stated that the area where this project exists has
been zoned for high density housing, which causes a
problem for the schools which would have to house the
students generated from this project. She also stated
that there was no safe route to walk from this project
to the schools and would recommend that the developer
provide a public trail through the SCE easement. She
stated that they contacted all the adjacent property
owners. Mr. Boyd and SCE were agreeable to provide
a foot path through their properties as well as Flood
Control's approval. Mr. Oder, another adjacent property
owner, stated that he would agree to allow the foot path
along his property; however, he wanted the flooding of
the creek addressed. She stated that the City is willing
to discuss accepting this within the City's trail system.
The City Engineers have stated that it will be difficult
to mitigate the creek issue which supports Mr. Oder's
flooding issue. She also stated that although this
project was in walking distance of two schools, they
would have to bus students to other schools.
LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, stated their concurrence with staff's
conditions and they are prepared to dedicate the strip
of land required by the school district for the foot
and bike path. He explained the route of the drainage
system, one along the southerly road system and also
along the southerly property line. He stated that
once they get to the southerly corner of the property
they have the option of going down the Oder property or
pcminll/19/90 -16- 11/28/90
MINUTES NOVF, MBER 19~ 1990
the Summer Breeze property to get to the creek, and they
are still reviewing this.
CHAIP. MPa~ CHINIAEFF questioned if there would be any
on-site trash enclosures.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that each homeowner would be
responsible for trash containers.
CHAIRF~N CHINIAEFF questioned the Engineering
Condition requiring that medians being built on Rancho
California Road.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that if SP199 did not build them
then they would be conditioned to complete those
improvements.
DOUG STEWART stated that SP199 would not be building the
medians.
I~d~RY MARKIL~M commented, with regards to the Oders, that
the have agreed to go to 50% over-bulking of the flood
drains.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned a phased development plan.
He was concerned with the improvements of Rancho
California Road being done in off hours construction so
that the public is not affected and also the need for
a phased construction plan for this project.
DOUG STEWART stated that the improvements to Rancho
Califoria Road are being considered for night-time
improvements. Phased construction would be based
on staff approval and the applicant would have to get
a phased map.
GARY THORNHILL stated that there was no requirement
for phased construction.
I~ltRYI~%RKI~%M stated that they would agree to phased
construction of the project.
8ALLY HORN, 41540 Winchester Road, Temecula, spoke in
favor of the project and the need for affordable housing
for homebuyers.
ROBERT L. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, stated
that he is very pleased with the progress this project has
made; however, he is still concerned with the proposed
drainage of this project. He provided staff with pictures
pcminll/19/90 -17- 11/28/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19, 1990
of flooding to his property as a result of flooding of the
creek. He stated that he felt the proposed drainage is
incompatible with the proposed density of this project.
He expressed a concern for the density of this project
and stated that he would like to see the project
restricted to a condomium project so that in the future
it could not be sold and bought to be converted to a
apartment complex.
ROBERT J. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, also
addressed the Commission with his concerns that the
drainage of the project has not been properly addressed,
in relation to his project Summer Breeze Apartments.
ROBERT L. ODER also stated that he felt the proposed path
along the creek and the SCE easement is a proposed safety
hazard. He stated that he felt that the flooding of the
creek has not been properly addressed.
TAMARA STEIN, 2049 Century Park Boulevard, Los Angeles,
attorney for the Oders' stated that she feels her clients
of addressed their concerns and would like staff and the
Commission to look at all of these issues before sending
this project on to the City Council for their approval.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Oders' were
opposing improvement to this site.
TAMARA STEIN stated that her clients were not opposed to
development, they just wanted to see quality as well as
sensitive grading.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that the issues that have been
addressed by the Oders' is better suited for the final
map stage. He stated that if there was some drainage
that was not being addressed it would be addressed.
He stated that they are willing to work with the school
district and the Oders' between now and the City Council's
approval.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDquestioned if the City would be held
liable if there was flooding resulting from this project.
JOHN CAVI%NAUGH agreed that the possibility did exist.
gARY THORNHILL stated that he would feel more comfortable
with revising the Environmental Assessment to ensure
that all issues are reviewed and proposed that the
Commission continue this item to the next meeting.
pcminll/19/90 -18- 11/28/90
PLANNING COMMISSION NINUTE2
NOVEMBER 19~ 1990
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to leave the public hearing open
and continue Tract Map 26549/Plot Plan 10864 to the
meeting of December 3, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER
ROAGLAND and carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
9. PARCEL MAP NO. 2~99
el
Proposal to subdivide a 4.31 acre commercial parcel into
two parcels in the auto center located at 41872 Motor Car
Parkway.
SANDRA FINN, Markham and Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, stated that the applicant is in
concurrence with the staff report and the conditions of
approval.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if any modular unit was
proposed for the project.
8ANDHA FINN stated that there was no modular proposed.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the disagreement
regarding the CC&R's.
SANDHAFINN stated that the underlying Plot Plan approved
the use. The have balloted the other property owners for
their approvals and they feel that they will receive their
concurrence.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved close the public hearing and
adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25599,
adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) and approve Parcel Map
No. 25599, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and carried
as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
10.1 GARY THORNHILL stated that the Lightfoot Study results
will be presented to the City Council on December 4 and
pcminll/19/90 -19- 11/28/90
PLANNING COIO~ISSION MINUTES NOVEHBER 19~ 1990
the City will be conducting interviews for the General
Plan consultant on December 8.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
11.1
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if a representative from
the Commission go to the City Council to present their
views on the two items up for appeal that had been
denied by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. The next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on December
3, 1990, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula.
Chairman, Dennis Chiniaeff
Secretary
pcminll/19/90 -20- 11/28/90
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - ENGINEERING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Summary Vacation of Jefferson Avenue
Prepared By: Robert Righetti
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 90-
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
Webb, Hawkins, & Associates
PROPOSAL:
Vacate existing Jefferson Avenue alignment.
LOCATION:
Northerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek between
Sanborn Avenue and Cherry Street.
EXISTING ZONING:
M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant
BACKGROUND:
Government Code Section 65360 requires that before
any planning action is taken, including a street
vacation, a finding of consistency with the future
General Plan must be made.
DISCUSSION: The portion of Jefferson Avenue to be vacated is
located northerly of Santa Certrudis Creek between
Sanborn Avenue and the previously vacated
extension of Cherry Street. This vacation is being
done in conjunction with and per the Conditions of
Approval of Parcel Map No. 23561-2. The surrounding property, through which the
portion of street to be vacated lies, is zoned M-SC. The existing alignment of
Jefferson Avenue is 60 feet in width and runs through the northwesterly portion of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561-2. The new alignment of Jefferson will be 100 feet
wide with a curb-to-curb width of 76 feet.
STAFFRPT\ENG-002 1
The realignment of Jefferson Avenue will allow a direct connection to the alignment
which was established by Parcel Map No. 20~,90, and will eliminate the curvilinear
layout of the old alignment. This new alignment is in agreement with Tentative
Parcel Map No. 19582, which will be constructing complementary improvements within
the proposed right-of-way.
The existing alignment to be vacated contains no improvements at this time, and all
utilities which may have been installed in the existing easement have been relocated
to the proposed alignment. Per Streets and Highways Code, Section 8333, a
summary vacation may proceed if it is found that "The easement has been superseded
by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement."
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Since the subject vacation and the proposed
realignment is in conformance with both previously
recorded Parcel Map No. 20~,90, and Tentative
Parcel Map No. 19582, and the easement has been
"superseded" by the relocation of all utilities and
other public uses, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 90-
finding the vacation of the existing Jefferso;~
Avenue alignment, northerly of Santa Certrudis
Creek between Sanborn Avenue and previously
vacated Cherry Street, to be consistent with the
General Plan currently being developed by the City
of Temecula, and will not be of substantial detriment
to the General Plan if the vacation is found to be
inconsistent when the General Plan is adopted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
ADOPT Resolution 90- finding that theSUMMARY
VACATION of Jefferson Avenue is CONSISTENT
with the General Plan presently being developed by
the City of Temecula, and that there is no likelihood
of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the
vacation ultimately is inconsistent with the final
plan adopted by the City.
RR:ks
Attachments:
Legal Description and Plat
Parcel Map No. 23561
Vicinity Map
STAFFRPT\ENG-002 2
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING VACATION OF A
STREET EASEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City is presently the owner of a street located within
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561-2 (hereinafter, the "Easement"}. The Easement is
more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties, has petitloned that the City vacate the
Easement; and
WHEREAS, before the City may vacate this easement, it must be
determined whether the vacation is consistent with the General Plan the City is
presently developing, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. There is a reasonable probability that vacation of the
Easement will be consistent with the Ceneral Plan the City is presently developing.
SECTION 2. There is no likelihood of substantial detriment to or
interference with the City's future General Plan if vacating the Easement ultimately
is inconsistent with the Plan.
SECTION 3. The vacation of the Easement complies with all other
applicable requirements of State Law and City ordinances.
SECTION
adoption of this Resolution.
The Secretary to the Commission shall certify the
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula,
does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution vacating Jefferson
Street in conformance with Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
,19
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\ENC-002 -1 -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the ~ day of , 19 , by the following vote of
the Planning Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SECRETARY
STAFFRPT\ENG-002 -2-
II'7'~0
EXHIBIT "A"
VACATION OF A PORTION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE
PARCEL 1
A strip of land 60.00 (sixty) feet wide known as Jefferson Avenue
(formerly Garfield Avenue) over that portion of the Murrieta
Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by Map of Temecula Land
and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 Of Maps, Records
of San Diego County, California, described as follows:
Contmencing at the centerline intersection of Jefferson Avenue
(formerly Garfield Avenue) and Winchester Road (formerly
Banana Street) as shown by Record of Survey on file in Book
58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of
Riverside County, California;
THENCE North 37' 40' 46" West on the centerline of said
Jefferson Avenue a distance of 1512.54 feet to a point in the
Northeasterly right-of-way line of the "New Alignment" of
Jefferson Avenue, said point being the true point of beginning
of the parcel of land to be described;
THENCE North 48' 39' 30" West along said Northeasterly right-
of-way line of the "New Alignment", a distance of 157.52 feet
to a point of intersection of said.'Northeasterly right-of-way
line and the Southwesterly right-of-way line of Jefferson
Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue);
THENCE North 37' 40' 46" West along said Southwesterly right-
of-way line and the Northwesterly prolongation thereof, a
distance of 1454.07 feet to a point in the centerline of
Cherry Street (vacated) and also being on the Southeasterly
line of Lot 81 as shown by said Record of Survey on file in
said Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey,
Records of Riverside County, California;
THENCE North 48' 01' 07" East along said centerline and said
Southeasterly line a distance of 60.17 feet to a point of
intersection of said centerline of Cherry Street and the
prolongation of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of
Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue);
THENCE South 37' 40' 46" East along said Northeasterly right-
of-way line a distance of 1631.44 feet to the most Westerly
corner of Lot 8 as shown by Parcel Map No. 23561-1 on file in
Book 157, pages 44 through 46 of Parcel Maps, Records of
Riverside County, said point also being in the Southeasterly
right-of-way line of Sanborn Avenue;
THENCE South 41' 20' 30" West parallel with the centerline of
said Sanborn Avenue a distance of 2.98 feet;
THENCE South 03' 39' 30" East a distance of 32.53 feet to a
point in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Jefferson
Avenue "New Alignment";
THENCE North 48' 39' 30" West, continuing along said "New
Alignment" right-of-way line, a distance of 46.60 feet to the
true point of beginning.
Contains 2.185 Acres more or less.
See Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof.
PARCEL 2
That portion of the Northeasterly corner of the Murrieta
Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by the Map of Temecula
Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 of Maps,
Records of San Diego County, California, and as shown by Records
of Survey on file in Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of
Survey, Records of Riverside County, California, described as
follows:
Commencing at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue (formerly
Garfield Avenue) and Cherry Street (vacated) as shown on said
Record of Survey;
THENCE South 48' 01' 07" West along the centerline of said
Cherry Street a distance of 30.09 feet to a point in the
Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly right-of-way
line of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue), said
point being the true point of beginning of the parcel to be
described;
THENCE South 37' 40' 46" East along said prolongation and
Southwesterly right-of-way line a distance of 335.75 feet to
a point of cusp with a curve concave to the Southwest, having
a radius of 256.50 feet;
THENCE Northwesterly through a central angle of 56' 30' 30",
an arc length of 252.97 feet, the initial radial line bears
North 52' 19' 14" East;
THENCE South 85' 48' 44" West a distance of 135.24 feet to a
point in the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Cherry
Street, said point being 30.00 feet Southeasterly of, measured
at right angles to the'centerline of said Cherry Street;
THENCE South 48' 01' 07" West along said right-of-way line and
parallel with said centerline a distance of 44.66 feet to a
point in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson
Avenue "New Alignment";
THENCE North 48' 39' 30" West along said Northeasterly right-
of-way line a distance of 30.20 feet to a point in the
centerline of said Cherry Street;
THENCE North 48' 01' 07" East along said centerline a distance
of 278.81 feet to the true point of beginning.
Contains 0.696 acres more or less.
See Exhibit "C", attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof.
PARCEL 3
That portion of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) being
a part of the Murrieta Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown
by Map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page
359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, described as
follows;
Commencing at the centerline intersection of Jefferson Avenue
(formerly Garfield Avenue) and Winchester Road (formerly
Banana Street) as shown by Record of Survey on file in Book
58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of
Riverside County, California;
THENCE North 37' 40' 46" West along the centerline of said
Jefferson Avenue a distance of 1512.54 feet to a point in the
Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue "New
Alignment";
THENCE South 48' 39' 30" East along said Northeasterly right-
of-way line a distance of 46.60 feet to the true point of
beginning of the parcel to be described;
THENCE North 03' 39' 30" West a distance of 32.53 feet to a
point 50.00 feet Southeasterly of, measured at right angles
to the centerline of Sanborn Avenue, as shown on Parcel Map
No. 23561-1, on file in Book 157, pages 44 through 46 of
Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California;
THENCE North 41' 20' 30" East parallel with the centerline of
said Sanborn Avenue a distance of 2.98 feet to the most
Westerly comer of Parcel 8 of said Parcel Map No. 23561-1;
THENCE South 37' 40' 46" East along the Southwesterly line of
said Parcel 8 a distance of 146.01 feet to a point of
intersection of said Southwesterly line and the Northeasterly
right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue "New Alignment", said
point being a point of cusp with a curve concave
Southwesterly, having a radius of 1850.00 feet;
THENCE through a central angle of 02' 32' 47" Northwesterly
along said Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue
"New Alignment", an arc length of 82.22 feet, the initial
radial line bears North 43' 53' 17" East;
THENCE North 48' 39t 30" West, continuing along said
Northeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 38.15 feet to
the true point of beginning.
Contains 0.035 acres more or less.
See Exhibit 'D", attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof.
/
/
EXHIBIT "B"
VACATION
PARCEL I
\ /
/
7/ \\\
\
/\
/\
/
/ \
/
t
TRUE P~'KT aF ~c61HNIM6
46,. z'O ' \"'
CON TRIMS
e 185 MC.~
WEBB, I~AWKINS & ASSOCIATES
. C I T Y OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT
PROJECT: E[/STf~ ~ ~' VMCR~ PREPARED BY
SCALE =/'
DATE, ~f ~.lfqO
w.O. NO.,/Oa~
APROVED BY, SHEET
50'
~J
CITY
ROAD
PROJECT:
APROVED BY:
DATE:
\PARCEL 2
\ \
J4
TPM No, 213 51 e J 2
EXHIBIT '" C"
VACATION PARCEL 2
OF TEMECULA,. CALIFORNIA
AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT
dEE~ ~ - Y~t~Tl~N
PREPARED BYe ~.
SCALE,/~
DATE'
w.O. NO.,
~HEEt ~ OF
EXHIBIT "D"
VACATION
PARCEL
I
30'
1 I1687'£Iet Y ('OR P~'L. 8
T. Ro.b.
Cl TY OF TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT
pBO jF CT: ,~//~.//~/V~tT'u ~/~t/'tt~(~/f.//ppLt · PREPARED BY t ~/. S.
SCALE= /"
DATEt M,~Y,
W.O. NO. '
.,
APROVED BY, ' SHEET 7 OF
DATE =
I
I,d
IZ
n
Ld
I--
I--
I~1
I--
I[
':.'IF!
,F-:
iI
4
VAC.
6~6D
GRADED
VAC.
PAlIrK
VAC..;
VAC.
'51TE
VAC
GRADED
VAC.
:
VAC.
VAC.:
'VINITY MAP
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council Denial
of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Tierra Investment
Walter B. Dixon
57 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8
acres o
South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500
feet easterly of Moraga Road.
R-3-3000
( General Residential, 3,000 square feet
per dwelling unit)
North: R-1 (Single Family Residential,
7,200 square foot rain. lot size)
South: R-3 | General Residential )
East: R-1 (Single Family Residential,
7,200 square foot min. lot size)
West: R-3-2,500 { General Residential,
2,500 square foot per
dwelling unit)
PROPOSED ZONING: Same
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential Tract
Apartments Under Construction
Single Family Residential Tract
Vacant {Proposed Town Homes )
STAFFRPT\TM25603 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Lot size:
No. of Lots:
Min. Lot Size:
Max. Lot Size:
Conceptual
Proposal:
20.8 acres
57 lots
9,000 sq.ft.
24,695 sq.ft.
Construction of q-plexes
on each lot
This project was first submitted to the County on
December 1, 1989. The first Land Development
Committee for this project was conducted February
1, 1990. The project was found to be incomplete at
that time and additional information was requested
for review of the project. The project was
transferred to the City of Temecula April 24, 1990.
The project is a proposed 57 lot multi-family
residential subdivision of 20.8 acres located on the
south side of Margarita Road east of Moraga Road.
The site is currently vacant rolling hill topography.
The project is designed with two north-south cul-
de-sacs off of Margarita Road with two east-west
connecting streets between the cul-de-sacs. The
project proposes to mass grade the site to provide
large building pads for multi-family units on each
lot. The design of the tract is for all the lots to
function independently with no common open space
or recreational facilities being provided within the
project.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual
development plan for the site. This conceptual
development plan is for the construction of L~-plex
units on the individual lots. With ~, units per lot, as
conceptually proposed, the end result would be 228
rental units with the possibility of 57 separate
owners. The current zoning for the site would allow
a maximum of 302 units. The current zoning for the
site is R-3-3000 which requires 3,000 square feet
per unit and a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
With the current zoning, a ~,-plex unit would
require a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. 35
of the proposed lots are too small for q-plex units
and only a maximum of three units could be built on
these lots. The maximum number of dwelling units
that could be constructed on the proposed project
with this design is 219 units. A chart showing the
proposed lot sizes and maximum number of units per
lot is attached.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 2
The project, as designed, proposes a crib wall up to
a height of 29 feet along the southern portion of the
project. The applicant has an agreement with the
property owner to the south to maintain the area
between the property line and the crib wall.
The project also requires the use of retaining walls
between the lots and along the access road to
Margarita Road (Avenida Tierra Dulce). The wall
along the road is up to 16 feet in height while the
walls between lots are up to 8 feet high.
The design of the project also requires off-site
drainage easements be obtained. The applicant has
agreements with the surrounding property owners
to accept the off-site drainage.
Tract design concerns are due to the mass grading
of the rolling hill terrain. These concerns include
the need for high retaining walls and off-site
drainage easements.
The project has been reviewed by the Development
Review Committee on two occasions. The project
has been redesigned to address some of the
concerns of the Development Review Committee. A
second access has been provided to the project and
the project has been conditioned to provide for a
flashing yellow light for increased pedestrian safety
along Margarita Road. Major concerns still existing
include:
2.
3.
5.
Mass grading and the use of high walls.
An increase in school attendance in the high
density area.
Lack of a formal development proposal for the
project, including architectural and
landscaping standards.
The conceptual development of ~,-plex units
does not conform to the current zoning of the
site and the proposed tract map.
The high retaining walls along Avertida Tierra
Dulce at the access with Margarita Road.
GENERAL PLAN SWAP AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
The project is not likely to be consistent with the
proposed General Plan because of the design of the
project. The multi-family project does not provide
any common open space or recreational facilities.
STAFFR PT\TM25603 3
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
CONCLUSION:
FINDINGS:
As indicated elsewhere in the report, the conceptual
development plan does not conform to the current
zoning for the site.
The environmental impacts of this project can be
mitigated by project design and compliance with the
Conditions of Approval. Therefore, a mitigated
negative declaration is recommended.
The proposed subdivision does not include a
development project. Without a development
proposal, there is no guarantee of what will be built
on the site. Consequently, there is very little City
control of proposed projects so long as they conform
to the zoning for the site and are q units or less.
With the current proposal, 57 different owners
could propose 57 separate multi-fami ly units ranging
from tri-plexes to eight-plexes on the site.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
The proposed tract map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for the project. A mitigated
negative Declaration is recommended for
adoption.
The tract map has been reviewed for
possible environmental impacts. The
project has been conditioned to
mitigated possible environmental
impacts.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be inconsistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
The project proposes mass grading and
does not provide any common open
space or recreational facilities for a
multi-family project.
It is likely that all future subdivisions
of multi-family zoned properties will
require a development plan or a plan
residential development to be
processed concurrently with the
tentative tract map.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 4
There is a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The project impacts current
recreational facilities and will set a
precedence of not providing
recreational facilities in multi-family
projects.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law.
The project is consistent with current
zoning for the site.
The site is not suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The project, as designed, requires
mass grading of the site and the use of
retaining walls and crib walls to a
height of 29 feet to provide for the
proposed flat pads.
The project does not conform to the
conceptual development plan and
current zoning for the site.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental initial study has
been completed and no unique habitats
were observed on site and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Potential residential units will have
significant southern exposure which
allows for proper solar accessibilityfor
active solar potential.
All lots do not have acceptable access to
existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-
way which are open to, and are useable by,
vehicular traffic.
The secondary access to Margarita
Road with proposed retaining walls of
16 feet is not acceptable access.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property.
The project does not conflict with
existing easements, the Conditions of
Approval require the project to
conform to State, County and Town
codes for subdivision development.
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
ADOPT Resolution 90- recommending that the
City Council Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report.
SJ: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
q..
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Initial Study
Exhibits
STAFF R PT\TM25603 6
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8
ACRE PARCEL INTO A 57 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA
ROAD 1,500 FEET EASTERLY OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-370-005.
WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended denial of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\TM25603 1
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, ( hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of
the Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in denying the
project, each of the following:
a)
The proposed tract map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for the project. A mitigated
negative Declaration is recommended for
adoption.
The tract map has been reviewed for
possible environmental impacts. The
project has been conditioned to
mitigated possible environmental
impacts.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 2
b)
c)
d)
e)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be inconsistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
The project proposes mass grading and
does not provide any common open
space or recreational facilities for a
multi-family project.
It is likely that all future subdivisions
of multi-family zoned properties will
require a development plan or a plan
residential development to be
processed concurrently with the
tentative tract map.
There is a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The project impacts current
recreational facilities and will set a
precedence of not providing
recreational facilities in multi-family
projects.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law.
The project is consistent with current
zonin9 for the site.
The site is not suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The project, as designed, requires
mass grading of the site and the use of
retaining walls and crib walls to a
height of 29 feet to provide for the
proposed flat pads.
The project does not conform to the
conceptual development plan and
current zoning for the site.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 3
f)
h)
j)
k)
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental initial study has
been completed and no unique habitats
were observed on site and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
Potential residential units will have
significant southern exposure which
allows for proper solar accessibility for
active solar potential.
All lots do not have acceptable access to
existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-
way which are open to, and are useable by,
vehicular traffic.
The secondary access to Margarita
Road with proposed retaining walls of
16 feet is not acceptable access.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property.
The project does not conflict with
existing easements, the Conditions of
Approval require the project to
conform to State, County and Town
codes for subdivision development.
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 4
PASSED, DENIEDANDADOPTEDthis dayof
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\TM25603 5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No: 25603
Project Description: 57 Lot Multiple
Family Subdivision of 20,8 Acres
Assessor~s Parcel No.: 921-370-005
Planning Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance~,60. The expiration
date is
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
q60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer
and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities.
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of Lots E, F, and
G Open Space, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to
establishment of the district.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical
height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall
be a minimum of one-half the slope height.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the
City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-3-3000 zone, all ~,-plex lots shall have
a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 2
16.
17.
18.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
(ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Margarita Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-d-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 3
19.
20.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successoris-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 ~,
21.
22.
23.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to
include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift
mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the
project; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the
project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
1~,3 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~,60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2~,633, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
STAFFRPT\TM25603 5
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
25.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
26.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
27.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
28.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract
maps. The CCF, R~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining
the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior
of all buildings.
29.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner~s group, or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet
the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC~,R~s which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CCF, R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required
by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
30.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
31.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CCF, RIs.
32. All slopes are to be a maximum of 2:1.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 6
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
RedesicJn lot pattern at Lot C intersection with Margarita Road to reduce
retaining walls. Retaining wall along street shall be no greater than 6 feet
high.
Redesign entire tract to provide minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet.
Provide design manual and criteria to be recorded with the map. Prior to
recordation, the designs shall be approved by the Planning Director.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor~s interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which
shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met
and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall
reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66u,62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer~s cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department~s transmittal dated November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations from the
Riverside County Flood Control District. If the project lies within an adopted
flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10. 25 of City of Temecula Land
Division Ordinance ~,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy
Permits.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department~s letter dated November 19, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist|s transmittal dated February 2, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 7
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the UCR
ArchaeolocJist's transmittal dated January 8, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existincj easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
46. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
47.
48.
Marcjarita Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement,
or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43~/55~).
Avenida Cima Del Sol, between Marcjarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be
improved with ~, feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 103, Section A (q~,'/66~).
Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall
be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-d-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 104, Section A (40~/60').
STAFFRPT\TM25603 8
50.
51.
52.
53.
5q..
55.
56.
57.
58.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~,62,5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the
final map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or noticed on the final map.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities, including storm drain on Margarita Road.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. q61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
buildin9 permit.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 9
59.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
60. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
61.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 0,00 and 0,01 (curb sidewalk).
62.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two {2) feet from the property
line.
63.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 20," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
65.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
66.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
67.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. Acopy ofthe recorded drainage easement shall be submitted tothe
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
68.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
69.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
70.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 10
71.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
72.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
73.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
75.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
76.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
77.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9~, of the State Standard Specifications.
78.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Nogative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 11
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
79.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered civil engineer,
and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenida Sonoma
to Avenida Cima Del Sol and Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary
transitions. These signing and striping plans shall be included with the
street improvement plans. This design shall include a left turn pocket on
Margarita Road westbound for southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125' of
storage capacity and 120~ of approach transition.
80.
Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered civil engineer to
show 11/2" rigid conduit, with pull rope, and #3 pull boxes on 200 foot
centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This
design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved
by the City Engineer.
81.
Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida
Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer,
approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street
improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement
Agreement with the City to receive a 35% reimbursement for the cost of design
and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No.
25~A3. A credit shall be given toward this developer~s signal mitigation fees
for the 65% responsibility of the design and construction of this flashing
yellow school signal.
82.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
83.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered civil
engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for
any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation, as
required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
85. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan.
86.
The developer shall inform the land owners that when the median on Marcjarita
Road is constructed, there will be no break provided to permit left turning
movements into or from the proposed second development access road,
Avenida Tierra Dulce. Avenida Cima Del Sol shall be the only full access
intersection provided for this project.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 12
87. All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per
the special provisions and the approved plan.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 13
11/19/90
09:29 COUNT'i' FIRE PLANNING DIUISION
RWEPa[DE COL~T~
~ C0~IRAT~ Wg~ THE
G~I~NIA ~PARTMINT ~ff ~OREITRY
AN~ FiRS pROfeSSION
OL~ 3. N~MAN
P. 02
~ovember 19, lg90
CITY OF TEHECULA
ATTNZ FLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRACT 25603
With respect to the~onditione of approval regardinS the ·bore referenced parcel
map, the ~ire Department reco~enda the following fits protection me·lures
be provided in accordance with Riverside County Otdinl~el and/or re:oSnized
fire ;roteotto= ltln~lrds:
The Xtre Department le required to let · minimum fire flow for the remodel
or eonltruc~ion of all commercial buildings using the procedure eet·~lishsd
in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists · water eyetom capable of deliverin2 2000 GPH
for I 2 hour duration It 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must he
available before InF combustible ~aterial is placed on the Job site.
A~provad super fire hydrants, (G'x4"xl~xlj) shall be located at each street
tn~ereserio~ end space~ not more ~han 330 fast a~art in any direction wink
no portion of a~y lo~ fron~ale mcra than 1~5 feet from a hydrant.
Applleant/devaloper shall furnish one copy of the witty system )lens to
the Yire Depar~men~ for review. Plank shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, lootelan and spaninS, and, the system shall melt the fire flow
re~uitemante. Pla~e shall ~s siSned/a~provsd by I reSistsred civil eelinter
end the local water cuEpony with the followin2 certification: "I certify
tha~ the design of the water system is in accord·nee with the requiremanEs
prescribed by the ~ive~sida County Fire Depart'mont."
Insnail · nob, plate firm sprinkler tyetem in sll buildings requiring a
{ire flow Of 15OO OPM or Irestir. The poet indioator valve and fire
department ocnmeotio~ shall be located to the front~ within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a m~nimum of 25 feet from the buildinS(e). A etate~ent
that the ~uild{nlCe) will be sutoma=ioelly {iwe sprinklered muem be
included on ~he title pale e{ ~he )u~ldin8 plane.
09:30 COUNTY FIRE PLANNING DIVISION
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to tnetalhtio~, at
required by the ~iform Buildina Code.
5
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(o) must be area separated
into square foot compar~ments~ appeared b7 the Fire Department, as
Section 50~ (e) of the ~nifo=m BuildinK Code.
G. · eta~aunt that the bui!dic2 viZl be au:cEatically ~tra sprinklered
mus~ appear on ~he title pose of the buildinS plans.
Certain demiSeteed areas viII be required eo be mainLeined as Eire lanes.
~ustall portable ~irs extinSuishers vlth a minimum ra~in2 cf 2A-iO~C.
Contact a certified txtinSutsher company ~or proper placement o~ eq~ipment.
Prior to issuance o[ buildin2 ~srmttso ~he appllcan=/develcper shell
be responsible Eo subml~ I chick or money order in the amount of $558.00
to ~ha Riverside County Fire Depar:man~ for plan check fees.
12.
13.
Prier =o Ohm issuance o~ buildin2 permits, the developer e~all dopesin
vl~h =ha Cl%y of Tamsouls. · cheek or money order e~uslin2
the lu~ of 2~C ps~ s~uars foot as mitllstion fez fire protectio~ impacts.
Th~e emoun~ musv be s~b~iC~sd ~e~ere~sly from the plan check review ~ee.
Tins1 condigS,no will ~s Isddrss~ed v~s~ buildin8 plsns ~ro ravishes in she
Buildin8 and isfety Office.
All ~uestious reisrdin8 the msanin2 of eondl~lons shall be referred to the
~ls~nin2 and gn2inee~inj S~eff,
Chief Firs Department Pls~er
Laura Cobra1, rite Safety 8pecisllsu
DATE: January 8, 1990
:IiV.zDiDE count.u
PLAnnine DEPa:IClTIEnC
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety - Land Use
Building and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Rancho California Water Dist.
Southern CalifOrnia Edison-DQug Davies
Southern California Gqs
General Telephone
Caltrans ~8
City of Temecula
Temecula Valley Uni'fied School ~ist.
Commissioner Turner
Meadowview Community Assoc.
Audobon SQciety
Sierra ClUb
UCR - Archaeological Unit
San Bernardino County Museum
Community Plans
RECE~ IN
ARU
JAN 17 1990
TRACT 2560~---*--~T~-~) ....... E.A. 34677 -
Tierra Investment - Walter B. Dixon
Rancho California Area ~ - First
SUpervisorial District - N of Rancho
California Rd., E of Maraga Rancho Rd. -
R-3-3.000 Zone - 20.83 Acres into 58 Lots
- Schedule A - Mod 119 - A.P. 921-370-005
Please review the case described .above, .,along .with the :attach~ case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for :February 1, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to public..hearin~,./, , .~ .
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 1, 1990 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
Lisa Cooke at 787-1363.
Planner
COMMENTS:
The project area Was surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger project (see
MF 991); no sites were recorded. If, during construction, cultural resources are
encountered, it is receded that the area be reevaluated by a qualified
archaeologist.
DATE: 1/23/90 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
rs
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
Archaeological Researci~ Unit
universiitv oJ California
Rlversid{ CA 92521
JAN 2 6 19 0.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL LETTER
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 2, 1990
TO: Lisa Cooke - Team 1
FROM: Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
RE: Tentative Tract Map 25603
Slope Stability Report No. 206
The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the
subject site:
"Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Parcel 28 Tract Map 3334, Rancho
California Area, Riverside County, CA," by California Geo Tech, dated December
18, 1989.
This report determi ned that:
The on site earth materials consist of flat-lying, interbedded units of
the Pauba formation comprised of sands, silty sands and silty sands
with some clay.
Fill slopes are expected to be stable against rotational failure to a
maximum height of 30 feet and cut slopes to a maximum height of 20 feet
for slopes at a ratio of 2:1.
This report recommended that:
1. All grading shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Uniform Building Code as amended by County Ordinance 470.
2. The project Geotechnical Engineer should review the foundation and
grading plans prior to grading.
Fill slopes should be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other
suitable equipment. Relative compaction shall be at least 90 percent
on the finished slope face.
This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope stability
report. The recommendations made in this report shall be adhered to in the
design and construction of this project.
SAK:mp
I rc. rlvr'n NOV 1 .q 1990'
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF HEAL H
4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE. CA. 92503 (M,Hinq Address - P.O. Box 7600 92513-7600)
November 13. 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92390
ATTN: S-E~'~tE JIANNINO
RE: -rP_;NTATIVETRACT MAP N0.
M.B. 54125-30.
(58 LOTS)
25603:
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has
Map No. 25603 and recommends that:
LOT 28, TRACT NO. 334,
reviewed Tentative Tract
A water system shall be installed accordanD to
plans and specifications as aDproved by the water
tommany and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not
less than one inch equals 200 feet, alonQ with the
oriQinal.drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints
shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
valves and fife hydrants; pipe and joint
specifications, and the size of the main at the
junction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5,
Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title
22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be
siqned by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system in Tract Map 25603 is
in accordance with the water system expansion plans
of the Rancho California Water District and that the
water service, storage, and distribution system
will be adequate to provide water service to
such Tract MAD".
CINDRA ROWELL, 8,S.N,, M,B,A, J.M, FANNING, R,S..
D£PtJTy DIRECTOR OF HEALTH DEpUTy D~R[CTOR Or NEALT~ E.J, GALL&GHER, M.D,, M.P,H,, M,A. OEpLITy DIRECTOk~ OF H£ALTH DEPUTy DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
City of Temecula
PaQe Two
Attn: Steve 3iannino
November 13. 1990
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that
it will supply water to such tract map at any specific
quantxties, flows or pressures for flre protection or any
ether purpose". This certification shall be si~ned by a
responsible official of the water company.
~._~.gb.~3_~_e_~_j_9 The County
~3.~.~t t~ weeks prior to the request for th~ recordation of
~.he..._/i~ m~
This subdivxsion has a statement from Rancho California
Water District aQreeinu to serve domestic water to each
and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with
the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial
arranQements to be made prier to the recordatlon of
the final maD.
This subdivision is w~thln the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
Dlstrxct. The'sewer system shall be installed accordino to
plans and specifications as aDDroved bV the DIstrict, the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted xn
triplicate, alon~ with the orl~lnal drawinu, to the County
Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and ~oint
specifications and the size of the sewers at the ~unction of
the new system to the existing system. A single plat
indicatin~ location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall
be si~ned by a registered engineer and the sewer dlstrict
with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract No. 25603 is
in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract map."
Cltv of Temecula
Pace Three
Attn: Steve Jiannino
November 13, 1990
T_h_~,,_~i~A_s ~!~__st be submi_tte_,d_,!g__~h_e__Qo_u~t_y__Survevor's Office
t_m__r.e_~.l_~_w,._ltl,et_s_t two weeks prl_p_Lr, to the recuest for the
[j~_Qo_l_~ation of the finai_lmllh,
It wzll be necessary for financial arranuements to be
completely finalized pPior to recordatZon of the final map.
Sincerely,
"' ~ i onmen
~ a I En r tal
SM:dr
Health Specialist IV
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Tierra Investments
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 332
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 699-63q9
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 17, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
6. Location of Proposal:
Marqarita Road, 1,500 (+/-) feet
easterly of Moraqa Road
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
X
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
ST A FF R PT\TM25603 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air, Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM25603 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation ) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 4
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X __
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas.~ __ __ X
STAFF R PT\TM25603 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health )?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 6
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM25603 7
I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a.
1 .b-f.
1.9-
2.a-c.
3.a,c.
3.b.
3.d-f.
3.g.
3.h.
3.i.
4.a.
~,.b.
4.c.
No. The project is not located in any known unstable earth areas.
Yes. The current topography consists of rolling hill type terrain. The
area will be mass graded which will be a major change in the topography
of the site and cause possible soil erosion. All mitigation measures will
be included in the grading and building permits process. Prior to any
construction, a City-maintained permit must be obtained and adhered
to.
No. The area is not located in a hazard zone and people will not be
exposed to hazards.
No. The project is a residential subdivision and should not have a
substantial effect to the air. No unusual developments are proposed.
Yes. The project proposes mass grading and will alter the current
drainage patterns. The course of flood waters will also be altered. The
project will have to conform to the recommendations of the Riverside
County Flood Control District and the City Engineer to mitigate flood
and drainage concerns.
Yes. The project will add road and housing units which will decrease
the absorption rate of the site. All development causes a decrease in
absorption rate, this will not be a significant impact.
No. The project will not have a significant effect.
Yes. The project will affect ground water because of a decrease in the
absorption rate. The project will not have a significant effect.
No. The project will not require the use of a substantial amount of
water.
No. The project is not within a flood hazard zone and will not pose a
threat to people.
Yes. The native vegetation will be removed. No unique species were
observed on site. There will not be a substantial impact.
No. No rare or unique plant species were observed on site.
Yes. The proposed multi-family project will introduce new vegetation
to the area. The project is conditioned to use drought tolerant and
native plant species. There will not be a significant impact.
No. The area is not currently used for agricultural products.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 8
5.3.
5.b.
5.c.
6.b.
7.
9.a,b.
10.a,b.
11.
12.
13.a.
13.b.
13.c.
13.d,e.
Yes. The development process will eliminate existing native animal
species. This will not be a significant impact. The project is a
residential in-fill project.
Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat Habitat Study Area. No Stephen's
Kangaroo Rats were observed on site. The project has been conditioned
to pay the appropriate fees for K-Rat mitigation.
Maybe. The existing site will be graded. No wetlands or unique
habitat exists on site. The project will not have a significant impact.
Yes. The area is currently vacant. The major noise increase will be
during construction and grading activities. This will be for a limited
time period and will not be a significant impact.
No. No severe noise producing activities are proposed.
Maybe. All lighting will be hooded and directed away from public
rights-of-way and adjoining properties. The project is conditioned to
conform to the recommendations contained in the Palomar Observatory
Outdoor Lighting Policy.
No. The project conforms to existing zoning and to SWAP.
No. The project is a residential project and will not have a substantial
impact on natural resources.
No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a
threat.
Yes. The area is currently vacant and proposes residential
development. This will alter the population, but the project is
consistent with current zoning and SWAP.
Yes. The project will create housing units on vacant land. The area
is zoned for this, so no significant impact will occur.
Yes. The project could provide a maximum 219 dwelling units which will
increase vehicular movement. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence
to Engineering and Traffic Conditions,
Yes. The project will increase the demand for new parking. The
project will provide the required parking for the proposed use.
Maybe. The project will increase travel on existing roadways. The
project will be conditioned to provide for necessary street improvements
and pay capital improvement fees.
No. The project will not impact the circulation pattern or alternate
transportation methods.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 9
13.f.
14.a-f.
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a.
21 .a-c.
21 .d.
Yes. The project will increase traffic and possible hazards. Part of the
mitigation will be with the installation flashing yellow lights for
increased pedestrian safety.
Yes. The project proposes a residential development which will
increase service needs. The project is conditioned to pay the proper
fees for mitigation.
No. The project will not require a substantial use of energy.
No. All necessary utilities exist in the vicinity of the site. The project
is a residential in-fill project.
No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a
significant hazard.
Maybe. The mass grading of site and the use of retaining walls and
crib walls could be objectionable aesthetically. The site could be
designed to incorporate contour grading.
Yes. The multi-family residential project with no recreational facilities
will impact the current City recreational facilities. Mitigation will be
achieved by adherence to the Quimby Ordinance.
Maybe. The area is in a possible sensitive paleontology area. During
grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
Maybe. The project impacts the environment in many ways, but no
significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
No. No substantial impacts will occur.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 10
ENVIRONMENTAL DFTERMI NAT ION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NECATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\TM25603 11
LOCATION
CASE T'#~/'/"A 7'1
MorZA
/
· d
r
f
ZONtNG" ~
CZ 2757
A 0
> r-5-
CZ 2757
~,ooo
3000
CZ 4136
CZ 4561
G~LiFORN~.
CZ 4453
CZ4500
4980
CZ 4179
CZ 3798
R-2
C
INDIVIDUAL LOT DATA ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract No. 25603
Net Maximum
Lot No. Lot Area No. of Units
1 10,036 3
2 11,310 3
3 11,165 3
4 11,600 3
5 11,935 4
6 11,460 3
7 11,376 3
8 12,833 4
9 17,180 5
10 24,695 8
11 20,800 7
12 15,540 5
13 14,145 4
14 12,240 4
15 12,240 4
16 12,240 4
17 12,806 4
18 13,080 4
19 11,165 3
20 10,585 3
21 10,005 3
22 9,628 3
23 10,815 3
24 19,685 6
25 20,400 6
26 10,910 3
27 12,900 4
28 9,125 3
29 9,000 3
30 9,000 3
31 9,548 3
32 10,147 3
33 9,720 3
34 9,720 3
35 9,693 3
36 20,706 6
37 10,920 3
38 10,4o,0 3
39 9,012 3
40 9,000 3
41 15,624 5
42 13,070 4
43 11,475 3
44 14,075 4
45 19,985 6
46 23,960 8
47 10,320 3
48 10,125 3
49 10,125 3
50 9,720 3
51 9,720 3
52 13,700 4
53 9,504 3
54 9,504 3
55 9,504 3
56 9,504 3
57 9,504 3
TIERRA INVESTMENT
P.O. Box 332
Temecula, CA. 92390
Mr. Thomas H. Ingram, Director
Department of Building and Safety
County of Riverside
1777 Atlanta Avenue, Suite No. G-5
Riverside, California 92507
SUBJECT: OFFSITE GRADING FOR TRACT N0.23304, CLUB VALENCIA,
ON PARCEL NO. 28, TRACT N0. 3334, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA.
Dear Mr. Ingram:
Tierra %nvestment, A California Partnership, owners of Assessors
Parcel No. 921-370-005, located in the unincorporated area of
Rancho California, County of Riverside, California. Our property
is located on Margarita Road, 1500± feet easterly of Moraga Road
and is adjacent to and northerly of a portion of the subject Tract
No. 23304.
We hereby grant permission to the Developers of said Tract No.
23304 to construct specific improvements over and upon the south-
erly 25 feet, measured horizontally of our property. The improve-
ments are shown on the Tract No. 23304 Grading Plan and Landscap-
ing Plans approved by Riverside County and are defined as follows:
1. Construct a cut slope of one vertical to one and one half
horizontal within the area of permission.
2. Construct a concrete brow ditch along the top of the slope
per the approved grading plan.
Install landscape irrigation system and landscape planting
per the approved landscape plans.
We understand that all work shall be performed in the best work-
manlike manner to the specifications of the County of Riverside,
under the supervision of a qualified Soils Engineer. The Developer
of said Tract shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion
of the work noted and that all such work shall be inspected
and approved by the appropriate Agencies of Riverside County.
It is also mutually understood that the improvements recited here-
in will be maintained by the Developer, Appel Development Corpor-
ation per tkeir letter addressed to Tierra Investment, dated
August 24, 1989, of which a copy is attached hereto.
TIERRA INVESTMENT, A California, Partnership
Ill
Walter B. Dixon, General Partner
Date:
N Appel Development
CORP RATION
O
August 24, 1989
Mr. Walt Dixon
Tierra Investments
41785 Enterprise Circle
Suite "D"
P.O. Box 332
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Offsite Grading of Tract No. 23304
Dear Mr. Dixon:
In response to our telephone conversation of 8/23/89 regarding the
above referenced project, this letter is to provide you with
assurances you desire.
It is our intention and obligation to fully landscape and maintain
the slope we will construct on your property in conjunction with
our development.
The second concern you expressed had to do with our providing a
sewer easement and stub as discussed in the past. Please be
advised that this provision is being submitted to the sewer
district and is designed to meet their design standards.
This letter shall serve as our agreement and obligation to provide
the mentioned sewer stub and provide slope maintenance including
landscape and irrigation indefinitely.
If the above is satisfactory, please sign the letter of permission
to grade and return it to our office immediately so we can finalize
our grading documents with the County of Riverside.
Please do not hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance
or answer any questions you may have.
Sincerelye,-
APPEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
/
Lawrence R. Doherty '
Vice President Development
LD/sjc/FX
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 104
Prepared By: Steve Padovan
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Bedford Properties
Herron and Rumansoff Architects, Inc.
To add 1,996 square feet of retail space to an
existing shopping center at Tower Plaza
27~,75 Ynez Road
C-P ( General Commercial )
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P (General Commercial)
C-P ( General Commercial )
C-P (General Commercial)
Freeway Right-of-Way
Not requested.
Commercial Retail
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
Freeway Right-of-Way
Total Gross Additional Floor Area: 1,996 sq.ft.
Plot Plan No. 10~, was submitted to the City of
Temecula on July 19, 1990. It was subsequently
scheduled for Pre-Development Review Committee
meeting on September 10, 1990, and a Formal
Development Review Committee meeting on November
21, 1990. All comments from the affected
departments have been received at this time.
STAFFRPT\PP104 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The project is located in the existing Tower Plaza
shopping center. Currently, the proposed addition
is occupied by a large trellis type structure over a
pedestrian walkway. This walkway was formerly an
access to a lake that was located behind the
shopping center. However, the lake has been
removed and replaced with a parking lot.
The applicant is proposing to construct 1,996
square feet of additional retail space in an existing
shopping plaza. The trellis and pedestrian walkway
will be removed and a new smaller access will be
provided.
The proposed application will remove an existing
pedestrial walkway through the northern portion of
Tower Plaza. This walkway was originally provided
as an access to a lake behind the shops and
provided an outdoor amenity for the plaza.
However, the Riverside County Planning
Commission approved Plot Plan No. 11220 on October
16, 1989, for an expansion of the existing shopping
center which replaced the lake with a parking lot
and added several thousand square feet of
additional retail space. The walkway will be
replaced by a new smaller access that will be
constructed along with the shopping center
expansion. The new access will be 6 feet 6 inches in
width, and will have a wood beam trellis type
construction. The newly constructed addition will
architecturally match the existing center design
with a recessed storefront and a covered walkway.
Staff feels that the removal of the existing
pedestrian access is valid because the lake amenity
has been removed and the parking area located
behind the shops will basically serve as employee
parking only.
The stores facing the new parking lot all have rear
access doors for employees and a new access is
being provided to supplant the one that will be
removed. The additional 1,996 square feet will
require ten (10) extra parking spaces. The
existing center has adequate parking to
accommodate the additional retail space.
STAFFRPT\PP104 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The project is a general retail use which is a
permitted use in the C-P zone. The project will
likely be in conformance with the future proposed
general plan.
The project is Class 3, categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act.
FINDINGS:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 104 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural due
environment due to the small scale of the
project.
STAFFRPT\PP104 3
10.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Plot
Plan No. 10q, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
SP:ks
Attachments:
Resolution (Plot Plan No. 104)
Conditions of Approval (Plot Plan No. 104)
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PP104 4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 10~, TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
1,996 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RETAIL
SHOPPING CENTER AT 27~,75 YNEZ ROAD.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Plot Plan No. 10~, in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP10~, 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan. as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 104 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
STAFFRPT\PP104 2
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 104 will be consistent with the City~s
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan. if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
STAFFRPT\PP104 3
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
hei9ht, intensity, and coverage creates 'a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoinin9 properties.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
| 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Environmental Assessment was conducted on the project and it was
determined that the project was Class 3, categorically exempt from CEQA.
FORMS\RES-PP 3
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Environmental Assessment was conducted on the project and it was
determined that the project was Class 3, categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 104 for the operation and construction of 1,996 square feet of additional
retail space to an existing shopping center located at 27475 Ynez Road subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION
Resolution.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\PPI04 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 10~,.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP10~, 5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 104
Project Description: A 1,996 square foot
addition to an existing shoppinq center
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-023
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the addition of 1,996 square
feet of retail space to an existing retail center at 27475 Ynez Road.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 104. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two {2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two {2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on December 3, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 104 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department~s transmittal
dated September 25, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
STAFFRPT\PP104 1
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Prior to the issuance of buildin9 permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
The architecture of the proposed addition shall be in conformance with that
of the existing center, incorporating similar treatment to the building facade.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with the existing shopping center.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
One (1) Class III bicycle rack shall be provided in a convenient location as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
a)
No occupancy permits shall be granted on the proposed addition
until a new pedestrian access is provided per the attached plans.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
STAFFRPT\PP104 2
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEAUH
CITY OF TEMECULA DATE:
ATTN: Steve Padovan
=~Z.~Z~EjVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIAL[ST IV
09-~5-90
PLOT PLAN i04
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan
lO4 and has no oblections. Sanitary sewer and water
services are available in this area. Prlor to bulldino Olan
submittal. the followino items will be requested:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerlnO
a~encles.
2. Three comDlete sets of Dlans for each food
establishment will be submitted. Includino
fixture schedule, a finish schedule. and a
Dlumblno schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
:~M:dr
n 'f. Bs
R 3 W. R 2 W ! 17o07'30"
ROAD CI_ASSIFICATION
Heavy<lut~ Light~uty
MURRIETA, CALIF.
N 3330--W 1 17025175
yNET.-
~ ITF-
owe~ ~C~A0
gok~-
VlCik ITY MAP
N
.®
% J
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission ~
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner
December 3, 1990
Case No: Plot Plan No. 34;
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059; and
Change of Zone Nos. 6 and 7
Plot Plan No. 34, Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059, and Change of Zone Nos. 6 and 7
were scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 1990; and the
Public Hearing Notices were sent to the surrounding property owners. This item
was placed on the agenda and advertised based on the agreement by the applicant
and Staff that the traffic analysis required by the Traffic Engineering Staff would
be submitted prior to November 12, 1990; and reviewed by the Formal Development
Review Committee (Formal DRC) on November 22, 1990. However, the applicant has
not yet submitted the traffic analysis (as of November 28, 1990).
At this time, both the Planning and Engineering Staff are working with the applicant
on this project and requests that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 34,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059, and Change of Zone Nos. 6 and 7 to their regular
meeting of December 17, 1990, at which time the project and traffic analysis has
completed its review by the Formal DRC.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 34, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25059, and Change of Zone Nos. 6 and 7 to
their regular meeting of December 17, 1990.
OM:ks
STAFFRPT\PP34
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Oliver Mujica, Senior Planne
December 3, 1990
Case No: Plot Plan No. 179
Plot Plan No. 179 was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of November
19, 1990; and continued to their regular meeting of December 3, 1990, in order for
the traffic analysis required by the Traffic Engineering Staff to be submitted and
reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee (Formal DRC).
The applicant submitted the traffic analysis on November 19, 1990; and the project
has been scheduled for review by the Formal DRC on December 6, 1990.
At this time, both the Planning and Engineering Staff are working with the applicant
on this project and requests that the Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 179
to their regular meeting of December 17, 1990, at which time the project and traffic
analysis has completed its review by the Formal DRC.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission continue Plot Plan No. 179 to their
regular meeting of December 17, 1990.
OM:ks
PLANNING\M~,0
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 26549
Plot Plan No. 10864
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1. Recommend Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Recommend Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Boyd and Iszler
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham 8 Associates
PROPOSAL:
Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing
approximately 22.22 acres.
LOCATION:
South of Rancho California Road, east of Moracja
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Tentative Tract No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864
proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site
into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an
overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The
proposed development has been designed in
accordance with the standards for Planned
Residential Developments (Section 18.5) and the
R-3-3000 zone.
BACKGROUND:
On November 19, 1990, the Planning Commission
considered the applicantis proposal; and, continued
this item, in order to allow the Planning Department
Staff the opportunity to revise the Environmental
Assessment, due to those concerns identified below
in the Staff Analysis.
ANALYSIS:
In response to the comments expressed by the
Commission, the Plannlncj Department Staff has
revised the Environmental Assessment as described
below:
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A I
Grading
The project site will be graded as part of a mass
grading effort which includes 180,000 cubic yards
of excavation and 180,000 cubic yards of fill.
Substantial grading and recontouring of a fairly
prominent natural ridgeline will occur. However,
the proposed grading was designed to adhere to the
gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition; and, the conceptual grading plan for the
project was reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and the Conditions of Approval include
mitigation measures in regards to grading.
Drainage
As a result of the proposed grading for the project,
water will be channeled to drainage easements and
street. In addition, approximately 18 percent
acres) of the subject site, which contains 22.22
acres, which should drain to the south will be
diverted to the north. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with City and
Riverside County Flood Control District Standards
and Conditions of Approval.
Flooding
Empire Creek which is located to the south of the
subject property may be impacted by the
development of this project. However, in order to
mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by
surface runoff and the proposed drainage facilities,
the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District has indicated that the
potential impacts will not be significant and the
project will be required to pay an Area Drainage
Plan fee which has been included as a Condition of
Approval.
In addition, the City Engineering Department Staff
has discussed this matter with the owner (Robert
Oder) of the property to the south of the subject
property, in order to insure the prevention of
damages caused by surface runoff and to insure the
utilization of erosion control measures.
Correspondingly, Conditions of Approval have been
included as mitigation measures in regards to flood
prevention and erosion control.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
CONCLUSION:
After revising the Environmental Assessment, the
Planning Department Staff has determined that
although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in the Conditions of
Approval which have been added to the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward the following
recommendations to the City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan
No. 10864;
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-__ approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Plot
Plan No. 10864, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
OM:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
11.
Environmental Assessment
Resolution (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
Conditions of Approval (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10864)
Conditions of Approval (Plot Plan No. 10864)
Planning Commission Staff Report
( dated November 19, 1990 )
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(dated November 19, 1990)
Letter from Cox, Castle 8 Nicholson
(dated November 20, 1989)
Letter from Riverside County Flood Control
(dated November 27, 1989)
Letter from Mira Loma Apartments (Oders)
(dated November 16, 1990)
Large Scale Plan (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9-A 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Boyd and Iszler
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 5718
Canyon Lake, CA 92380
(714) 244-2823
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 21, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and
Plot Plan No. 10864
6. Location of Proposal:
South of Rancho California Road,
east of Moraqa Road
Environmental Impacts
Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidlty?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFR PT\TM26549. A 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals. or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops. and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds. land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish. benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~ TM265~,9. A 3
10.
11.
12.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ __ X
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
X
X
X
X
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource? X
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances ( including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
STA FFR PT\TM265~,9. A L~
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X
1~,. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered 9overnmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 5
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1o6o
1.f.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes
180,000 cubic yards of excavation and 180,000 cubic yards of fill.
However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula~s standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation
measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will
not create an unstable earth condition or change the geolocjic
substructure.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However,
this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all
grading.
Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural
ridgeline of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was designed
to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site,
which includes 180,000 c.y. of excavation and 180,000 c.y. of fill, will
occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote
preservation of site topography. Therefore, this impact is not
considered significant.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use
of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices
will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in
accordance with Temecula~s standards and the Conditions of Approval.
It has also been noted that approximately 18 percent (~ acres) of the
subject site, which contains 22.22 acres, which should drain to the
south will be diverted to the north. Therefore, this impact is not
considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented with the project.
Yes. Although the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream
bed, Empire Creek is located to the south of the project which may be
impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to
mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the
proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 8
1.g.
Air
2.a.
2.b,c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
Water Conservation District has indicated that Plot Plan No.
1086~,/Tentative Tract Map No. 265q9 will be required to pay a flood
mitigation charge, which has been included as a Condition of Approval.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or
liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by
the Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential
hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction
of the property. The report will include mitigation measures.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 260 residential units will
generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle
trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the
area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is
currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential
impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by
itself deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to
the cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the
area .
No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or
alter the area's climate.
No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered,
especially along the southern property line. However, water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities
and control devices which will have to be approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula~s Standards and
the Conditions of Approval. In addition, approximately 18 percent of
the subject site which should drain to the south will be diverted to the
north. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
Yes. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood
channels. Empire Creek may be impacted by the development of this
project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought
about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the District ) has
indicated that the project will be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been included as a
STAFFRPT\TM265q9. A 9
3.f.
3.g.
Condition of Approval. In addition, the District has considered this
impact not to be significant. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project. Drainage plans for the site will have to
meet the requirements of the City's Engineer.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity
in local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the
City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground
Water.
No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the
landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the
ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which
require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
Veqetation
~,.a,c.
Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site
which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal
includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City
standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
STAFFRPT\TM265Li9.A 10
Wildlife
No.
Maybe.
A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this
project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no
individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found
there is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract
map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in
a taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the
species or on the species~ habitat. In that surrounding
lands to the north, south, east and west have previously
been developed at urban levels of use or are presently
being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this
site as a reserve is inappropriate. in addition, the site is
now isolated from all other known colonies by impassable
residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is
virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect and no
mitigation other than payment of fees under the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required.
Noise
6.a-b.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels
of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it
is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will
comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure
compliance with the County~s noise standards.
Liqht and Clare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 11
Natural Resources
9.a-b,
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use Of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 260
units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use
Designation which allows a maximum of 355 units (according to SWAP ).
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
Housinq
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a. Yes.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures
have been implemented through the Conditions of
Approval.
Public Services
lu,.a-e. Yes.
lo,.f. No.
The proposed project will have significant adverse effect
effect on public services. However, these impacts are not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented through the Conditions
of Approval.
Energy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing
recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides
adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and
appropriate Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have
been implemented with the project.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
for the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition,
during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
21 .b.
Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. However,
no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
21 .c.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental
effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation
measures are followed.
21 .d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
STAFFR PT\TM26549. A 13
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
November 21, 1990
Date
Oliver Mujica
Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAF F R PT\TM265~9. A 1 ~,
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A
22.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO.
9q.q.-290-011,
WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
{a)
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. ~1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
u,60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones pFeviously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 265u,9 will be consistent
with the City~s future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 3
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare,
Tentative Tract No. 265Li9 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephenis Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures must be approved by FEMA
prior to map recordation, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A ~,
surface fissuring at the site are very low. A
soils report must be submitted to the Building
and Safety Department addressing soil
stability and geological conditions.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9 for the subdivision of a 22.22 acre parcel into 260
townhouses located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor~s Parcel No.
9~,u,-290-011 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLAN N I NG COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNINC COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 265L~9.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\TM265u,9. A 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 265u,9
Planning Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
December 3, 1990
December 3, 1992
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance L~60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
Planning Commission approval date, unless extended as provided by
Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
q-60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County
Surveyor~s Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety..
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the
site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 1
10.
11.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-2 zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located
away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of
block walls and landscaping.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following
documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be
subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney:
a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot
or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions is incorporated therein by reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall (a) providefor a minimum term of 60 years, (b) providefor
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit, {c) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property owners~ association or the owners
of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the
following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners~ association established herein shall manage
and continuously maintain the ~common area', more particularly
described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area~, or any
part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning
Director of the City of Temecula.
The property owners~ association shall have the right to assess
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of maintaining the 'common area~ and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created,
shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice
of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
This Declaration shall not be terminated, ~substantially amended
or property aleannexed there from absent the prior written
consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the ~common area~.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners'
association Rules and Requlations, if any, this Declaration shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall file an
application with the County for the formation of or annexation to,
a parkway maintenance district or County Service Area for
Rancho California Road in accordance with the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing
parkway maintenance district.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans
from the City Engineer and Planning Department. All
landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be
prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing
with the County Road Department.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which
shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the
district.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those
operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the
Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\TM265LI9. A 3
12.
13.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall
comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file
in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the
Riverside County Planning Department."
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Lot "A" street.
Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be
provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project~s grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or
retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
Any oak trees removed with four (L~) inches or larger trunk
diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as
approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tress shall be
noted on approved landscaping plans.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 5
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be
curved in a continuous, undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
lu,. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
15. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to ~5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be jr)stalled including, but not limited to,
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
16.
17.
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant { Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a
small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection
container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into
the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 7
18.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
1~,3 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. u,60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
En.qineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
19.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
20.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~,60.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
22.
Rancho California Road shall be improved with ~,3 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (~,3'/55').
23.
Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 (561/78~).
Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12~ lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a ~,5'
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section
A (~,~?/66~).
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 8
25.
26.
27.
29.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66L~62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Rancho California Road and so noted
on the final map as approved by the City Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 2, 3, and
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR~s) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR~s shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
The CCBR's shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense.
The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCBR~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCBR~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCBR~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCBR~s, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 10
38.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
39.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland
escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be
designed for the 100 year storm plus 5096 bulking, oF as approved by the City
Engineer.
An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site
and downstream properties.
The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and
be designed to implement improvements as required.
Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the
installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following
the construction of the slopes and related grading.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the Cityss CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineerss Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 11
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
50. All units shall be provided with garage door openers.
51.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
52.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
53.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lu, days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, :39, and
9u, of the State Standard Specifications.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase theroof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM2650,9. A 12
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION
55.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road
which includes but is not limited to a 2001 left turn lane for southbound Moraga
Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125'
left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for
northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe.
These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans.
56.
Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and
pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho
California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans
and must be approved by the City Engineer.
57.
Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
58.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
59.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
60.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
61.
All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and
operational per the City requirements, speci'al provisions, and the approved
traffic signal plan.
62.
All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements
and the approved plan.
63.
"A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from
Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho
California Road to permit these movements.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13
The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for:
65.
5096 of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications
at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward
signal mitigation fees.
100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street
improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Las Colinas.
In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates
shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths:
1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet
2. "Asl Street entry:
75 feet
STAFFRPT\TM265u,9. A lq.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT
TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22
ACRES LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011.
WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Plot Plan No. 10864 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 1086u, proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a) The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
STAFFR PT\TM265~,9. A 2
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
{ 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 1086o, will be consistent with the
City~s future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
h)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 3
i)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
j)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 10864 to construct a 260 unit townhouse complex located on Rancho
California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 1086L).
DATED: By
NBme
Title
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
10864
260 Townhouses
944-290-011
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 260
unit townhouse development on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 10864. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two {2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on December 3, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 10864 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted tothe
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
lq.
15.
16.
of Ordinance No. 3~,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten ~10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of 685 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 685 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~,
inches of Class II base.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations ).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's
successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety as mitigation for public library development.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of
Temecula, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by
the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building
permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject
property until the developer, or the developer's successors or assignees,
provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the
financing of public facilities.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped
earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the
perimeter of the property. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to
the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Planning Director.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6) feet at maturity along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road and Lot
"A" street.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved
wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated
or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be
replaced on a ten ~ 10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development (the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size), Should Ordinance No, 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A, a
land division shall be recorded, subject to the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, in accordance with Riverside County
Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program (per
attached example) which shall describe how compliance with required
mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the
mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity
cost.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all
applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the
improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer
of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests
required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs
shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal
report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser
shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up
truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus,
prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said
agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
Buildinq F, Safety Department
35.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two |2)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
Riverside County Fire Department
36.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
38.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet
from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
39.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation of built-in
fire protection measures.
40.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building( s ). A statement that the building(s) will
be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per
UBC.
43. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, $u,00.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development.
The propertyis street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that
perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary
drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage
easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release
of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance
of permits.
On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be
contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions.
50.
Off-site drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated
drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The
documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
the issuance of permits.
51.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
52.
A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be developed, and shall be
implemented immediately following grading to prevent deposition of debris onto
downstream properties or drainage facilities.
53.
An underground concrete storm drain should be constructed as shown in
concept on Exhibit "E" attached hereto, to convey the entire 100 year flow
from the southerly portion of the proposed project to Empire Creek. An
energy dissipator and/or rock slope protection shall be provided at Empire
Creek to prevent erosion of the channel banks and invert. All facilities shall
be constructed to District standards. The offsite portion of the required
drain should be constructed prior to any grading operations on the proposed
project.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 6
Enqlneerlnq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
5~,. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
55.
The developer shall submit four (L~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~?x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
56.
The developer shall submit four (~,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
57.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
58.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
59.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
60.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 7
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-d-way.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site
and downstream properties.
The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasin9 and
be designed to implement improvements as required.
Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the
installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following
the construction of the slopes and related grading.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may
be required.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
STAFF R PT\TM265~,9. A 8
68.
All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland
escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be
designed for the 100 year storm plus, 50% bulking, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
69.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review.
70.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
72.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
73. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
75.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~,61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
76.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. L~00 and L~01.
77.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
78.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
79.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
80.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 2, 3, and ~.
STAFFRPT\TM265~,9. A 9
81.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
82.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City~s C.A.T.V.
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V.
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
83.
Rancho California Road shall be improved with LI3 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 100 (~,3'/55').
84.
Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111
{56'/78~).
85.
Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12' lane within a a,51 dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 103, Section A (L1~,'/66').
86.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~,62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
87.
Dedicate a 28 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access
for all private streets and drives.
88.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
89.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAF F R PT\T M265~,9. A 10
90.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR~s) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCF, R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CC&R~s shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCSR's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCF, R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCF, R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
91.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road
which includes but is not limited to a 200' left turn lane for southbound Moraga
Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125'
left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for
northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe.
These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans.
STA FFR PT\TM26549. A 11
92.
Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and
pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho
California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans
and must be approved by the City Engineer.
93.
Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
95.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
96.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
97.
All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and
operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved
traffic signal plan.
98.
All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements
and the approved plan.
99.
"A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from
Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho
California Road to permit these movements.
100. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for:
5096 of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications
at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward
signal mitigation fees.
100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street
improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Las Colinas.
STAFFRPT\TM265u,9. A 12
101.
In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates
shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengthS:
1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet
2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13
STAFF REPORT ' PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 19, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9
Plot Plan No. 1086~
Prepared By: Oilvet M~jica
Recommendation: 1. Ack>pt Negative Declaration
2. Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Boyd and Iszler
Markham ~; Associates
Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing
approximately 22.22 acres.
South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga
Road.
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
North: R -3-3000
South: R-3
East: R -2
West: R - 3
· I General Residential)
(General Residential)
(Multiple Family Dwellings)
(General Residential)
Not applicable
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
No. of Units:
No. of Acres:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
260
22.22
11.70 units per acre
8-16 units per acre
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 I
BACKGROUND:
Plot Plan No. 1086~ w~-e orlgln~ily approved at the
Riverside County Planning Director's hearing of
August 7, 1989. The project was approved to
construct a 335 unit apartment complex on the
subject property.
On October 11, 1989, the RiveFside County Planning
Coremission considered an appeak of the Planning
Director~s approval. The adjacent property owner,
located to the south, filed the appeal based on the
contention that development would significantly
increase surface runoff and sufficient measures
were not takon to insure that their downstream
property would not be damaged. It was the belief of
the appallant that this impact was caused by the
proposed density of the project. After considering
the project, the Riverside County Planning
Commission uphekJ the Planning Directotis approval
of Plot Plan No. 108t~ and denied the apl0ea~based
on the fact that the Riverside County Floed Control
and Conservation District determined there were
adequate provisions made for offsite drainage.
On December 12, 1989, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors referred the appeal of Plot Plan No.
10iiJ~ to the City Council of the City of Temecula,
On January 23, 1990, the City Codncii considered
and continued this matter "off calendaru; and
referred Plot Plan No. 1086~ beck to Staff, in order
to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign
the project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Revised Plot
Plan No, 10ir~ were submitted to the City of
Temecuta on September 11, 1990.
On September 27, 1990, this project was reviewed
by the Preliminary Development Review Committee
IPre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. Thecomments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1. Traffic Imlo~'ts
2. Circulation
3. Grading
Drainage
5. Landscaping
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting. Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's
Concerns.
On November 8, 1990. Tentative Tract Map No.
2651&9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~ were reviewed by the
Formal Development Review Committee I DRC ); and.
it was datemined that the project, as designed, can
be adequate4y conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approvat subject to conditions.
Tefttatlve Tract hie. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086u,
proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site
into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an
overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The
proposed development has been designed in
accordance with the standards for Planned
Rasidantial Developments ISecti,m 18.5) and the
R-3-3000 zone.
The proposed project. which is not planned to be
gated, consists of forty-nine 149) buikiings 132
two-story with tuck-under garages; and 17 two-
story only ) and utilizes nine 19) different unit floor
plans, as follows:* .
Two BedroOms 1,161 to 1,266 sq.ft.
Three Bedrooms 1,387 to 1,585 sq.ft.
The project site pian incorporates two 12) tennis
c_n,_urts: a recreation area of approximately 16.500
square feet that features a pool, spa, tot lot, and a
4,006 square foot recreation building: aed an open
apace area of approximately 5~,000 square feet.
Traffic Impacts
The TranslNNlation Engineering Staff has reviewed
and accepted the findings and mitigation measures
as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
for Tentative Tract Map No. 265/&9 and Plot Plan No.
1086u,; and has determined that the proposed project
will have a minimal impact to the existing road
system and given the proposed mltkja~.ion measures,
there will be no adverse unmitigable significant
traffic impacts resulting from the development of
this proposed project.
STAFF R PT\TM265~9 3
Access and Circulation
Access into the proposed development from Rancho
California Road is provided by the proposed
construction of an extension to Moraga Road. which
calls for a fifty-six ~561) foot street section. In
addition. a secondary acc*~ is provided by the
prof0osed construction of Lot atA~e street. which has
a forty-four (~) foot street section.
The primary acce~ point, off of Moraga Road,
provides two ~2 ) ingress and two | 2) egress lanes;
arKJ, a four |1~) foot landscaped median, for a total
of sixty 160~) feet. The secondary access point. off
of Lot "A" Street, provides one | 1 ) ingress and one
( 1 ) egress lane, for a total of thirty-two ( 32~ ) feet.
An internal, twenty-eight (28~) foot wide, private
driveway will provide access to the required off-
street parking areas. In order to lessen potential
internal vehicular congestion, the Traffic ·
'Engineering Staff has recommended a condition
which requires automatic garage door openers. in
addition, it should be noted that parking will be
prohibited along the private driveway and shall be
enforced through the CCSR's.
A meandering sidewalk throughout the project site
provides pedestJ'ial .circulation; and has been
deelgnad to lessen the potential safety hazards by
separating the sidewalk from the driveway. '
Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff,
as well as the Planning Department Staff. have
detemi~ad that the applicant~s proposed a~-ss and
circulation are acceptable.
Parkinq
Six hundred, eighty-five (685) parking spaces are
provided, which exceeds the required 680 parking
spaces under the Development Code (Section
18.12).
Each dwelling unit is provided with a two-car
garage (520 total spaces), and 165 guest parking
spaces are also provided.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 ~
Refuse Collect, ion
With the exception of the recreation center. the
applicant~s proposal does not provide trash
enclosures. The applicant has indicated that the
trash will be coilacted from each individual unit;
and that all units will be provided with a trash
compatlor.
in order to lessen the potantia~ safety and noise
concerns, Staff has included the following condition
in the rec~ Cof~ditiees of Aloprovai (see
Condition No. 16d - Tentative Tract Map No. 265u,9;
and, Condition Ne. 35 o Plot Plan No. 1086~):
'~Prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit, the applicant shall enter into
an agreement with inland Disposal,
Inc., for the refuse service to include
the utilization of a small pick-up truck
equipped with a llft mechanism and
collection container; thus, prohibiting
the entering of large refuse trucks
into the project. Said agreement shall
be submitted to the Planning Director
for approval."
Gradinq and Landform Alteration
The proposed project will generally utilize the
existing contours of the site in order to minimize the
alteration of an exiting, fairly prominent, natural
ridgeline. The grading involves approximately
180, 000 cubic yards of excavation and approximately
180,000 cubic yards of fill.
HVdrolaqy
The Engineering Staff has reviewe~ and accepted
the drainage study prepared for Tentative Tract
Map No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; and has
datemined that the proposed mitigation m~aures
(Conditions of Approval) will provide for no
adverse unmitigabla significant hydrology impacts
resulting from the development of this proposed
project.
Drainage
The proposed project is designed to drain towards
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 5
Rancho California Road and the southerly property
line. The applicant is proposing to construct a
storm drain from the southeast corner of the sub'iect
property with an outlet to Empire Creek, in which
an approval must be obtained from the Riverside
County Flood Control District in order to drain into
the creek, as welt as an easement from Southern
California Edison to construct the proposed storm
drain.
The applicant has indicated that there may be a
difficulty in obtaining the necessary easeme,ts.
from the property owners, in order to drain onto
the adjoining southerly properties. Therefore, the
appikant is proposing to oversize the drainage
facilities along the southerly property line in order
to prevent surface rul~-off.
Pedeetriwn Accessway
The Temecula Valley Unified School District has
noted an existing (unimproved) pedestrian
accessway, within the subject property, wh'gh is
currently utilized by the sdqod chikiren of Vail
Elementary School located on Mira Loam Drive. The
School District has indicated that an a~ternstive to
this accessway must be provided in order to obtain
their support of the project.
The School District has indicated that the easement
aleng Empire Creek is owned by Southern California
Edison (SCE): and that SCE has agreed to dedicate
this property to the City for a blcyclatpedestrian
trail.
The appiica~t has agreed to dedicate ton (10:) feet
along the westerly property line from Moraga Road
to the Empire Creek easement.
At the tim this Staff Report was finalized, the
City~s Community Services Depm truant had nct yet
determined whether or not the subject easement
would be acceptable to the City of Temecula, for use
as a bicycle/pedestrian trail. The concern is due to
the uncertainty of the total costs (including:
engineering design: improveBen~s; and
maintenance). Therefore, a recoeeeefldatkm by the
Community Services Department is not avaiiable at
this tkme, However, it is anticipated that this issue
STAFFRPT\TM266J&9 6
would be resolved prior to the Planning Commission
meeting of November 19. 1990. in which Staff will
present an update.
Projm:t Desi~qn
The traditional architectural style features a multi-
level roof line. bay windows and chimneys.
The proposeS buildings utiilze the foLiowing
rrmtef-lai.
Roof - Concrete Tile Blend
Stucco Walk - Eggshail "S4~eoth Texture"
Window/Door Frames - White Paint
Entry Deors - Colonial Blue
Wood Trim - Beige and Gray
After reviewin9 the applicantts renderings, Stmcf
has determined that the propos~ project design is
compatibie with the surrounding neighborhood.
Landsr,,,pe
Landscaping is provided throughout the site, in
which the proposed ~,11~ landscaping for the site
exceeds the requireS 10~ under the Development
Code. Trees within the area of the perimeter of the
park, recreation c~ntor. tennis courts, primary and
secondary entrance, and along the Rancho
California Road shell comprise of (21P box) Ficus
Florkl, Mete, Carrot Woad, and Ficus Rotusa.
Staif has determineS that the profiosed landscape
design is accep,~hle. In addition. a detaileS
landscape pl~ wilt bo sulalitted for approvat by the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of
buikJi4q9 permits.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
The proposeS density of 11.70 units per acre is
cohsistent with the Southw,st Area Community Plan
designatian of 8-16 units per acre. In eSditk>n,
St~f finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 265u,9 will be consistent
with the City~s future General Plan. which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial datrknent to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State plannin9 and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in term of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and cortditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 2651~9 is compatible with
surrounding 'land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density. and coverage is
likely to create a compatlble physical
relationship with adjoining properties_.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it dees not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the ares.
The project as deigned and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as datemined in the Init)al
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this applicatien are herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
STAFFRPT~TM265~9 8
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
An Initial Study was performeli for this pro~ect
which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment. no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in the Co~ditk~ns
of Approval have been added to the project. and a
hlegative Dectaratlo~ has been recemmended for
adoption.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract Map No. 265~,9
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 265~9 wilt be consistent
with the City~s future General Plan. which
will be completed within a rsesonable time in
accordance with State Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
prol0esed use or action is ultimatdy
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning t~ws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
p~tterns, access, and den~ty.
The projoct as ck~igned and conditk>ned will
not adversely affect the public heath or
weJfare.
Tentative Tract No. 289 is campatibie with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverecJe is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area,
STAFFRPT\TM26519 8
10.
11.
The project as designed and condltioned will
not adversely effect the bulit or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps. exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the envlromment in that
StephenLs Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures muet be ;H0proved by FEMA
prior to map recordation, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subeideece, and
surface fissuring at the site are very low, A
soils report must be subemitted to the Building
and Safety Department addressing soil
stability and geological con~ltioes.
Plot Plan No. 108t~
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 1086~ will be consistent with the
Cityis future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
There is net a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsietant with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accmmnodete the
propesed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
STAFFRPT\TM266~9 9
10.
11.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatibio physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use d the are,
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and
use=hio by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed ae~d cenditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as datermlned in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
The design d the project amJ the type d
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for ms through or
use d the property w&thin the proposed
project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by raferanca.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff rinds that the
Planning Commission forward the following
recommendations to the City Cou~cih
ADOPT the Negative Doclera~.ion for
Tentative Tract Map No, 265~9 and Plot Plan
No. 1086~.;
ADOPT Resokatien No. 90-__ approving
Tentative Tract Map FIe. 265419; bmmecl on the
analysis and findings contained in the Sta;;
Report and sub)act to the attached Conditions
d Approval: and
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 10
OM:ks
Attachments:
ADOPT Resolution Ne. 90- approvin9 Plot
Plan No. 1086~, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Resolution (Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9)
Conditions ot Approval I Tef~tative Tract Map No. 265~9)
Resdutio~ IP!ot Plan Ne. 108~&)
Cond~ti~s of AploFoval I PIot Plan No. 108r~)
Environmental Assessment
Exhibit: Site Plan
City Council Staff Report Idated January 23, 1990)
City Council Minutes Idated January 23, 1990)
Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\TM265119 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Boyd and Iszler
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 5718
Canyon Lake, CA 92380
(71q.) 2~-2823
Date of EnvironmeRtal
Assessment:
October 30, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 256~9 and
Plat Plan No. 1086~,
6. Location of Proposal:
South of Rancho California Road,
east of Moraqa Road
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attachad sheets. )
-Yes Maybe No
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslldes,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in Currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surfar4 waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direcfjon or rate
of flow or 9round waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265q9 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenls. hment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in ecreacJe
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRP'I~TM265q9 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an ara?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upsat. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an entergency
evacuation plan?
Population, Will the proposal altar
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
ae
Generatkm of substintial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM265~9 ~
15.
16.
Yes
Maybe N~o
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ X
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? __ __ X
b. Police protection? __ __ X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? __ __ X
f. Other govarnrnental services: __ __ ~
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a, Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ ~
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
Utilities, Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT~TM265~9 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainaga?
f. Solid wast~ and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological. site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe N,_9o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 6
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
dlsedvantacje of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the* project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or mere separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect' of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effeds which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM265~9 7
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.6,
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a.mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project. However, a
conceptual mass grading plan for the project was approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross
natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontourin9 of this site will occur in the
immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed arm are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed,
increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be appraved by the City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
No. Since the project site is nat adjacent to any creek or stream bed,
the proposed project will nat cause erosion of or deposition into any
creek or stream bed.
No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan, To mitigate under
hazard, a geological report should be prepared prior to any
construction of the property. The report should include mitigation
measures,
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air
quality.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8
Water
3.a.d-e.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Veqetation
u,.a-c.
~.d.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of run-off water in the City.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantially.
No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vegetationai associations or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project
analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no individuals of the
Stephenis Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within
the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a taking nor
would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species'
habitat. In that surrounding lands to the north, south, ,m~t and west
have previously been developed at urban levels of use or are presently
being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as a
reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now isolated from all
other known colonies by imp~hie rasidantiel and other barriers and
reinvasion of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the
project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephenis Kangaroo Rat Fee
Ordinance is required.
STAFFRP'I'~TM265~9 9
Noise
6.a-b.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels
of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it
is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will
comply with the interior noise exposure standard platre4 on resideqtial
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final engin==.-ing design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure
compliance with the County's noise standards.
Liqht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources, Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote · risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plen.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to incr~=~e the density to 260
units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use
Designation which allows a maximum of __ units (according to
SWAP ).
Housing
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed lend use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 10
Transportation/Circulation
13. a. Maybe.
13.b-e. No.
13. f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impac13 and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant.
Public Services
lu,.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
Energy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substanldal use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but wiii not
require substantial alteration to the existing system,
Human Health
17 .a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. Because the proposed project provides adequate recreational
facilities for the subject residents.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findincis of Sklnificanca
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, if a project is located within an ares
designsted by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
for the Stephents Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan,
STAFF R PT\TM265~9 11
21 .b.
~1 .c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
No. ,The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~vill be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have bean added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC //~
required.
/
October 30, 1990 ~} ' ~// ' '~
Date ~ajlnY~ ~M~EEC
3nior
F F T ULA
X
STAFFRPT\TM265/~9 13
:i!
,/
/
l~!hhilliill I~'
/
/
:liVFl ii) counc.u
PL nninE De cm nc
DATE: JANUARY 3, 1990
TO: CITY OF Ttu~ECULA; FRANK ALSHIRB,
CITY NAN~GER
PLOT PLAN NO. 10864
Appeal of Planning Commission's approval
of 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22
acres.
LOCATION: SOuth of PanchoCalifornia Road and east
of Moraga Road
APPLICANT: Helen P~ore Oder
Planning Comaission and Staff Pacommend:
~fiPTIONof a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.
33292 based on the conclusion that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment; and
D~IAL of the Appeal based on the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the staff report; and
~PPROV~t of PLGTPLANNO. 10864, ABe. !~3. 2, based on the findings
and conclusions in the staff report and subject to the conditions
of approval.
R~.jS~reeter~, Planning Dire~r
KJJ:aea
1-3-90
The pra~oHcl project to a preytreaty approved plot plan to construct I 335 unit Blurtwent complex On
apprecimteiy 22.22 acres iecatecl south of Ridto California had and east of Norage load. The site, ahlch is
currOntiy vacant, is zoned 1l-2. Surrcxalclinl zOninl is It-2, 8-3-44)00, I-3-3000 ard R-). Surrouldlng Land all
include nuittfami iy and single family rllidencll end vacant prq}erty. The project lies approved st the Planning
Director hearing of August 7, lg99. The adjacent preptry mrs, laceted to the south, flied in If;eel besed
On the cOntentiOn that dlveLq3ment ~culd Ilgfilflclfitty increase suffice ruffoff ird sufficient melaurec are not
taken to irmuro that their ciXdlltrell Iora~erty ImuLd riot be dmged.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
/A
A-2-20
R'3-,300,0 J
R'3'3000
RANCHO CAI,|FORN~A
R"-3
SUBMlllAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
, ..
FROM: Planning Department SUBMlllALDATE: October 27, 1989 k'\
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN N0. 10864 - Rancho Viego Apartments - ~
First Supervisorial District - Rancho California Area - 22.22 Acres -
REQUEST: APPEAL of ~Dlanning Commission's Approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Planning Cormnission and Staff Recommend:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
NO. 33292 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental
assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and,
APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN NO. 10864, in accordance with Exhibit A,
X~No. 2, based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated
in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989; and,
DENIAL OF THE APPEAL based on the findings and conclusions incor-
porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989.
LD:Dc
10/24/89
I~'ev. Agn. ref.
Dt, pt$. Comments Dimi.
AGENDA NO
MIN ES OF THE BOARD OF SUPER~. 3RS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1:30 p.m. being the time set for further hearing on the
a~option of the negative ~eclaration for EA 33292 an~ on the
appeal on the Planning Commission's denial of. the application of
~ancho Viego Apartments in the Rancho California area for Plot
Plan No. 10864, for a 335 unit apartment complex the Chairman
called the matter for hearing.
The matter was presented Dy Joe Riobards of the Planning
Staff who turned the discussion over to Gerald J. Geeflings,
County Counsel.
Gerry Geeflings, County Counselm stated it is now in the
jurisdication of the City of Temeoula.
On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor
Dunlap and duly carried by unanimous votem IT WAS ORDERED that
the Planning Staff is directed to refer the matter to t~e City
Council of t~e City of Temecula.
Roll Call resulted as follows:
Ayes: Ceniceros, Dunlap, Larson and
Noes: None
Absent: IYounglove
Abraham
I hereby certify thai !he foregoing is a full. Irue and correct copy of an order made and enlered on
December 12. 1989 of Supervisors Minutes.
WITNESS mv hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors
(seal)
10.2
xc: Planning, Applicant, Co. Co., City o~ Tmuecula
(AGENDA ITEH 5-6 - Tape 3A, 3B)
APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864 - EA 33292 - Helen Moore Oder - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisortal District - 22.22~ acres, south of Rancho California
Rd, southeast of Moraga Rd - PROjECT: 335 unit Aparlinent Complex - REASON FOR
APPEAL: Appeal of project approval by adjacent property owners
Hearing was opened at 3:23 p.m. and was closed at 3:50 p.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of a Negative Declaration for EA 33292,
approval of Plot Plan No. 10864, Amended No. 2, and denial of appeal of
approval of Plot Plan No. 10864 based on the findings and conclusions listed in
the staff report. Staff advised that the proposed project is a previously
approved plot plan to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on approximately
22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road.
The site, which is currently vacant, is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2,
R-3-4000, R-3-3000 and R-3. Surrounding land uses include multifamily and
single family residences and vacant property. The project was approved at the
Planning Director hearing of August 7, 1989. The adjacent property owners,
located to the south, filed an appeal ba~ed on the contention that development
would significantly increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not
taken to insure that their downstream property would not be damaged. The
appellant indicated that she would not be available to attend the public
hearing until November, but staff scheduled this item for hearing on the first
available date in order to move it along in an expeditious manner.
TESTIHONY OF APPELLANT:
Robert Oder (29923 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula) said that he was the son of the
appellant. He said that hii parents are overieas and cannot attend this
hearing, but would make thamielves available as soon as they come back.
Therefore, he asked that this item be continued. When asked, Mr. Oder said
that he believed that his parents will be returning on October lgth. Staff
advised that possible cbntinuance dates were suggested. In answer to
Commissioner Purviance, Mr. Oder said that his mother has an attorney but he
was also unable to attend thii meeting. Mr. Oder said that his mother
suggested that November 15th would be an appropriate date.
TESTIHONY OF PROJECT PROPONENT:
Grant Becklund (647 N. ~ln Street, Riverside), representing the project
applicant, indicated on a ntylar exhibit of the subject site that the upper
portion showed the existing drainage conditions. He noted that the site has a
ridge that runs through the property In an east/west direction. The lower
portion (in blue) drains to the south onto the Oder's property and the yellow
portion drains out towards Rancho California Road. The bottom exhibit showed
the drainage pattern which will occur after the project is built out. The
conditions from the Flood Control District require that they do not change the
drainage areas, but maintain the drainage patterns as they exist. They are
also required to place the water onto the offsite property in the same manner
as the drainage presently occurs.
Mr. Becklund said that he mot with Robert Oder and offered a $12-13,000 offsite
storm drain which would deliver the water underground further south and on to
Empire' Creek. This storm drain would be built at his client's cost and would
alleviate any concerns that the Oders had concerning water going onto their
property. The only thing the Oders had to do was to provide an easement so the
storm drain could be constructed. Nr. Becklund said that that proposal was
evidently not satisfactory. He said that he knows the Oders are asking for a
continuance, but he was requested that a decision be made today. They have
done what the rules require them to do. The Flood Control District has
conditioned then so that they cannot drain all the water onsite to to Rancho
California Road. He did not believe a continuance would gain anyone anything.
Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe the water in the blue area
could be diverted. Hr. Becklund concurred, but said that that was the opinion
expressed at the Director Hearing. Hrs. Ocler wanted then to take all onsite
water and drain it towards the north. He felt that they went an extra step in
offering to build the underground storm drain, but they are not getting
anywhere. He did not want another month's continuance.
In answer to Commissioner Turner, Hr. Becklund said that the Flood Control has
conditioned them to be within one acre of a match in drainage. John Kashuba,
Flood Control District, said that they do not want to see the blue area
changed. Commissioner Turner asked about the proposed underground diversion to
Empire Creek. Mr. Kashuba said that the Flood Control District would be
satisfied with something less, but the underground drain could be done, if the
applicant could acquire the easement.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Oder said that he was not fully prepared to present this case, but what he
heard scared him. He lived on one of the properties immediately south of this
tract when the 100 year flood occurred ten years ago, and he personally
witnessed what happened. If they take a nondeveloped piece of land and pave
it, then water that used to soak into the ground will be put into pipes and
sent on in concentrated fashion to those areas which are presently ice plant
landscaping. The place where the water ends up eventually is Empire Creek,
which is the southwest boundary of the parcel to the south. He said that thif
is an extremely sensitive area. During the 100 year flood the water got so
high, the buildings nearly washed away and people had to be moved out. Now,
they are talking about sending more water onto those aparments. He said that
there are several other problem with the design and documentation, and those
problems are substantial, but he was not prepared or qualified to present them.
He said that water runoff was not one of those problems, but that some of those
problems were significant. If his parents are not able to attend soon, then he
will prepare and present the case to the Commission. Their downstream property
has been substantially damaged by a project that was approved.
Commissioner Purvtance said that he read the letter from the law ftm and noted
that there was quite a bit of staff, with partners and associates. It seemed
to him that there could have been someone from that firm who could have
artended today. Nr. Oder said that he wished that they had. He has been told
of some of the issues; however, without documentation, he could not bring them
up. He was very concerned that Mr. Kashuba said that he would approve the
concentration of stom runoff. He suggested that there might be some facts
that Nr. Kashuba was not aware of.. Mr. Oder said that they have owned and
operated the two properties for 15years and have seen what happens in that
area. Mr. Oder went to the exhibit to state that where the site plan shows
"Storm drains to existing channel," and said that there is no existing channel.
However, if a storm drain is put there, then there will be a channel. He
indicated where the proposed underground storm drain would go. He said that
they have had problems with Empire Creek, where the proposed drain is to empty,
and expressed concern about anymore water being dumped into that Creek. He
felt that this needed further study. He also discussed the storm drain with
Mr. Kashuba. Mr. Oder said that the storm drain and easement was originally
his idea, and he presented that idea to Mr. Becklurid.
Mr. Kashuba said that he heard general agreement that the drainage problem
could be taken care of with the pipe. It was Mr. Oder's suggestion to put the
pipe in, and it seemed like a good suggestion. He heard that there were other
matters, but they did not sound like ones that he could speak to. Commissioner
Smith asked about the discharge where the drain would terminate. Mr. Kashuba
said, if designed properly, the discharge could be handled by the drain. He
said that the Creek itself has problems, but not necessarily as a result of
water fro~ this property. Mr. Oder said that the runoff would be increased
from the developed property. Commissioner Beadling said from the way the
drainage is shown, that in a 100 year flood, the water would not flow straight
down and hit the Creek in a '°V" shape. Mr. Oder said that the stream changes
course. Mr. Kashuba said that he was not aware which storm frequency hit this
area ten years ago. Mr. Oder said that it was classified as a 100 year flood.
Mr. Kashuba said that there were several points where damage was done, and at
one point the walkway of the existing apartments were eroded underneath. There
were also Soma construction going ohm and both water and mud caused
considerable demage.
Commissioner Turner asked if this item could be appealed further. Ms. Lind
advised that it could be appealed to the Board. Con~nissioner Turner said that
he could understand the appellant's concern. On. the other hand, in giving
people the right to make an appeal, they also have the responsibility to be
available to represent the case; in not in person, then by counsel. He did not
believe a delay was fair to the applicant.
Mr. Oder said that the topic was brought up with the Planning Department and
they had several discussions regarding scheduling. He said that he had a
1.tt.r C. ma.or..du. of u.d.rs.nd,.g) ,s. ,g,gwhich was the
result. of a telephone call between Ms. n g staff, and one of thai r
people. The letter is from Jean Van Ness (Legal Assistant to E. Ludlow Keeney,
Jr., of Mitchell, Keene , Berry & Pike) in reference to the telephone call,
where they were led to ~lieve the appellants would not have to be at the
that
hearing, or they would have been. He said that they understand and respect the
responsibiltt they have to present the case that they started. However, they
were given information indicating that this course of action was acceptable.
Mr. Streeter asked Ms. Dobson to make Mr position clear. Mr. Dobson said that
when she spoke to the attorney's assistant on the phone, she was asked if the
appellant needed to be there. Ms. Dobson advised that she said that staff was
going to make a raceemendation, and whether or not the item is acted upon or
continued was entirely up to the Planning Commission. Ms. Dobson said that she
could not commit to the attorney's assistant. Mr. Oder said that he was not a
party of the telephone call, so he could not argue the position. Commissioner
Purvlance said that Mr. Oder does not have any evidence in hand as to how Ms.
Dobson responded, except the lawyer's offtce's interpretation of the
conversation. The letter may be the understanding of one party, but may not be
the understanding of the other party. Mr. Oder said that he understood.
Ms. Lind asked, for the record, if Hs. Dobson ever indicated to Jean P. Van
Ness that a decision could not be made without the appellafft's presence at the
hearing. Ms. Dobson advised that she did not. Commissioner Turner said that
Mr. Oder did an admirable job with the small amount of information that he had,
and that the appellant has a further right to appeal, which would not hold up
the applicant. Hr. Oder said that there ware other substantial issues besides
the one of storm water runoff. Commissioner Purrlance said that they have not
discussed nor have received any evidence of those issues.
Commissioner Beadling said that she personally believed that there was a water
problem, but that she also believed that it is up to the person who is
appealing to have someone present when the case comes up. Hr. Oder said that
he was not a party to the telephone call, but he did not believe that Ms. Van
Ness "dreamed it up."
Hr. Streeter said that no one on his staff is going to tell someone that a
decision will not be made when an item is scheduled for hearing. He felt that
the real issue is one of flooding, and Hr. Kashuba has said that he is
comfortable with the conditions the way they appear on this plot plan. Also,
that there are some solutions to the problem, which he believed was the key.
They do not need any more information, as they have relied on the Flood Control
' engineers in the past and he sees not reason to.change that now.
Hr. Oder responded to that statement by saying that, yes, the Flood Control
'District is the authority here, but he felt that the history fr~n the 100 year
flood proves that Flood Control makes substantial mistakes. He said that they
will not see that happen again.
The hearing was closed at 3:50 p.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct
a 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres; the site is located south of
Rancho California Road and east of Norage Road in the Rancho California area;
Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th Planning
Director's Hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent property
owner; the August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination
made that flood mitigations required ware adequate; Plot Plan 10864 was
approved on August 8, 1989 by the Planning Director; the site is vacant,
surrounding by vacant land and apar)ent complexes; the site is zoned R-2;
surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000 and C-l/C-P; environmental
concerns include slopes, grading, noise, biological and archaeological
resources; the General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area; the
~roposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential development; the
Southwest Area Community Plan shows a tentatively approved designation of 8-16
DU/acre; the appellant's stated basis for appeal is the contention their
downstream property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during
the "100 year flood"; and, the appellant objects tot he property development
because of runoff concerns and because of the density of the project. Plot
Plan No. 10864 is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category I residential
criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved Southwest Area
Community Plan; Plot Plan 10864 is compatible with area development;
environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; the
Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Conservation District in matters of flood control; and, Riverside County Flood
Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions
made for offsite drainage, therefore, staff cannot support the appellant's
appeal request.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Beadling,
and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the Negative Declaration for EA
33292, approved Plot Plan 10864, Amended 2, subject to the conditions of
approval, but denied the appeal of Plot Plan 10864, Amended No. 2, based on the
above findings and conclusions.
Zontng Area: Rancho California
FIrst Supervisortal Dtstrlct
E.A. Number 33292
Reglonal Team No. I
APPEAL OF PLOT PL~ !10. 1~4
t
RIVERSIDE ~ PLNIIllli DEPARTHE]iT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant:
2. Type of Request:
3, Location:
4. Extsttng Zoning:
5. Surrounding Zontng:
6. Site Characteristics:
7. Area Characteristics:
Comprehensive General
Oestgnation:
Plan
Land Division Data:
Agency Recommendations:
11. Letters:
12. Sphere of Influence:
Helen HoDre Oder
Appeal of Planning Director's
approval.
South of Rancho California Road
East of Horaga Road
R-2
R-2, R-3-4000, R-3-3000, R-3
Vacant, moderate to severe slopes.
Vacant, multi-family and single
family res i dences.
Land Use: Category I
Density: 8-20 du/ac
Open Space/Cons: Areas not
Designated
Total Acreage: 22.22
Total Lots: 1
OU Per Acre: 15
See letters dated:
Road: 4-14-89
Health: 4-03-89
Flood: 4-19-89
Fire: 4-04-89
Bldg. & Safety -
Land Use: 4-20-89
Grading: 12-01-89
Health-Special Services: 7-07-89
Co. Geologist: 6-05-89
Opposing/Supporting: None received
Not within a City Sphere
ANALYSIS:
ProJect Description:
Plot Plan No. 10864 was submitted as a request to construct a 335 unit
apartment complex on 22.22 acres. The site is located south of Rancho
California Road and east of Motage Road in the Rancho California area.
· oPF. N. OF Pt.0T PLNI 108~4
Staff Report
Page 2
Project Background
Plot Plan No. 10864 was first heard at the Planning Dtrect~r's hearing on duly
10, 1989 where tt was continued to allow ttme for Investigation of flooding
concerns raised by adjacent property owners. At the August 7, 1989 Planning
Olrector's heart ng the adjacent property owner's, the Oders, Indicated they
were st111 not satisfied their downstream property would not be damaged by
run-off. The Heartrig Officer deferred dectston for one week to confer with the
Flood Control DIstrict. On August 8, 1989 (see letter attached) the
determination was made that the existing conditions of approval were sufficient
to mitigate the concerns ratsad on July 10 and August 7, and the project was
approved.
Land Use/Zoning:
The site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include apartments to the
north and south, commercial and vacant land to the west, and a horse ranch to '
the east. The site is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning Includes R-2, R-3,
R-3-3000, R-3-4000, and C-1/C-P.
ProJect Consistency:
The project site is with the Rancho California subarea of the Southwest
Territory Land Use Planning Area. Policies for future land uses indicate uses
should generally be Category I and II. Plot Plan No. 10864 meets the criteria
for Category I residential land uses, and the applicable requirements of
Ordinance No. 348.
The site has a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 du/ac on the Southwest
Area Community Plan.
Environmental Analysts:
The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 indicated the
following concerns; slopes, noise,biological and archaeological resources, and
grading. Studies were prepared to address all the issues and mitigation
measures were incorporated in the conditions of approval when applicable.
Basis for ADDel:
The appellant's primary basis for appeal (see attached statement dated 8-22-89)
is in re ards to the potential damn to their downstream property (adjacent to
the south) due to inadequate provts~o on Plot Plan No. 10864 for runoff
ns
control during the "100 Year Flood". The appellant contends they are not
legally required to accept runoff from upstream properties. The Riverside
County Flood Control and Conservation Distrtct's lettar dated 11-30-88, Item
#2, does require a drainage easement to he obtained from affected property
owner's for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows prior to the
A~PEAL OF KOT Pt. Al( 20864
Staff Report
Peg, 3
issuance of permits. Therefore. the appel]ant would have the opportunity to
review improvement and grading plans and refuse to grant'an easement If they
were not satisfactory. The applicant's engineer (Grant Becklurid) indicated to
staff they had offered to construct a drain on the appellants property fn order
to Insure prevention of flood damage. The appellant apparently did not feel
this was sufficient protection and subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning
Director's approval of Plot Plan 10864. The Basis for Appeal states that the
appellant ts "vehemently" opposed to the proposed project due to both runoff
concerns and the project's lack of open space. At the time the application for
appeal was submitted on August 23, 1989 the appellant indicated she would be
out of town until November and requested a hearing date during that month.
Staff subsequently tnformed that appellant that Ordinance 348 required the
Planntng Department to schedule appeals wi thin 30 days. On September 18, the
appellant's attorney submitted a letter again requesting a hearing date in
November. For the reason stated above staff could not acconmnodate the request.
It ts steff's position that it is in the best interest of all parties concerned
to expedite this matter as soon as possible.
FINOZNGS:
1. Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct a 335 unit aparbnent
complex on 22.22 acres.
2. The site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Horaga
Road in the Rancho California Area.
Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the' July lOth to the August 7th
Planning Director's hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent
property owner.
4. The August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination made
that flood mitigations required were adequate.
5. Plot Plan 10864 was approved on August 8th, 1989 by the Planning Director.
6. The site is vacant surrounded by vacant land and apartment complexes.
7. The site is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000,
R-3-4000, and C-1/C-P.
8. Environmentel concerns include slopes, grading noise, biological and
archaeological resources,
9. The General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area. The
proposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential
development.
APPEAL OF PLOT PLAII 10864
Staff Report
Page 4
10. The Southwest Area Community Plan shows a tentatively approved designation
of 8-16 Du/Acre.
The appellant's stated basis for appeal is the contention their downstream
property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during the "100
Year Flood."
12. The appellant objects to the proposed development because of runoff
concerns, and because of the density of the project.
CONCLUSIONS:
Plot Plan No. 10864 is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category I
residential criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved
Southwest Area Community Plan.
2. Plot Plan 10864 is compatible with area developrent.
3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Conservation District in matters of flood ~ontrol. Riverside County Flood
Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate
provisions made for off-si te drainage, therefore staff cannot support the
appellant's appeal request.
RECOINENDATIONS:
ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 based
ont"~"Th';'finding the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and,
APPROVAL of PLOT PUll NO. 10864, NTJI)E]) NO. 2, based on the findings and
;ons in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval; but,
DENXAL of the appeal based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report.
LD:bc;sc
9/25/89
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Rancid V~ejo APartments
PC, St OffIce Box 5718
Canyon Lake. CA 92360
PLOT PLAN NO. 10864. Amended NO.
Project Description: Tc CcnStru<'.
a 335 unlt apartment tomDie..
ASSeSSOr'S Parce) NO.:
Area: Rancho Callforn~a
The use herei;y permitted Cy thlS plot pl.~n
ar:,artmel't
The per,~lt%ee sna)i de~end. lndemnlf}, 5nO hol3 ham, less ~t-,e
Court> of Rivers!de, ~ts agents. off'cars. ant em~:c~ees fro~
~ny cla~m~, action. or ~r'oceedlng sga~n~t the Count~
~verslde Or ltS agents. officers, or employees tc attdck,
aside, raid. or annul, an approval of the County oP
~tS aJvlEo-) agencies. aPPeal boards. or ~eg~slat~.e
concerning Plot Plan 10864, Amended' NO. 2 E~h~t ~.
County Of ~verslde w~ll prOmDtl) notify the permittee
S~ch c~alm. aCttor~, O~ Oroceedlng against the Count) Ot
P~,/ers~e ard ~;ll coopera~e fully in the defense. if
County fa~ls to promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action Or p~oceedlng or falls to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not. thereafter. De responsible
to defef~d. Indemnify, Or hold harmless the County of
~lversl~e.
This approval shall be used w~thin two (2) years of approval
date; otherwade it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated Oy this approval within the two
year period which is ~hsrsafter diligently pursued tc
completion, or the beginning of substantial ut~l~zat~or
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall Conform substantially
with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Amended N~.
2, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a
period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become
null and void.
7
1:,
'4.
15.
15.
The iOD'lcaflt ~hall ;omply witl% L!te recomn,endaclot,~
July 7, 1989, e
D~rector's Heating
The aDDlicant shall comply with the Elsinore Union M~gn Sch, oi
recommendations dateO NovemOer 14. 19S8.
All landscaDea areas shall De olantecl
aDDroved landscape. Irrigation and shacllnq plans Drlor
isSuanCe Of occuDancy permits. An automatic
snal I be ~n~.ta! led and al 1 landscapea a~eas sr, a, ~ r.~
maintained ~n e ~l~ble
(10) fee~ of &n en~rf or ex,t drq~ew~ $hal~ nc, L be r2~"~
LO grow h;ghet' ~han Ch~rLy
'7
F
r;ot.'~] ~,
-,. , .~
5;>e.~, ! t.r.t..', T.*. $,_.'u-r,- ,',':,~...~ ':~ '~,e..i ~r'~. ~,!'.7-;' ~.'= -" -"
~,r s,de~aik. A .~rl S~l' al~o be Dosted ','. ~ :'-:'=. ,~' ;.;..
.".:18087 at eli'l-, er, t,'a,~ce to t~e off-street T,',~r'; ""-: a," ,:
not ]es.~ than 17
the
Dlac~FO~, or' ~ mcense Dlat~ issued for D,'.v~'.r
~8~l~lC~DDed D~FSC~5 m,)y De t~wed 8~'. 3t. Owne: '~ e re, '-'.
To-,ea ~eni;sles may be recl~mea at , ............... :',- :'
te leDhoning
PLOT PLAN NO. 10864
Ccmdltlons Of Approvsl
Page 4
Frlor to the ~ssuance of buildlr~g permits, the appl!cant $K,a~
obtain clearance ar~/'cr permits from the fo},lowln9 aq~ncJe:::
Roa~ Department
Environmental Health
R~vers~de County Flood Cclntrcl
F!re Department
Wrltte~ evidence of compliance shall De presented to the Lane Us~
D~Slon of the Department of Building and Safety.
22.
Bui I a 1 nq · 1 evat 1 one she 11 be 1 n suDstart ~ a 11 y con formante ~ ~: r,
tkat shown on Exhl~lt M-2.
Mste-lals use~ lrl the Construeriot, of all bult~ir',~ ~!~li Le
',n Substantial conformante with that shown on E.n~Clt M-2
~C(~lor E]evatlor,~l tfl~ E~nlblt M-1 (Materials BO~r.~.. Th~L
~re as fO!~OW~:
RC:f T~!e Clay
wa;ls ~Accent) Paint
×-50 Crystal
W~ndow Glass Clear
walls Stucco ,White
24.
25.
26.
27.
Roof-mounte~ equipment shall
Screening mater~a) shall De
approval.
be sh~elaeo from ground vlew.
subject to Planning Depa,'tment
N~ne (9) trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a
total of two bins each shall be centrally locate~ w~th~n the
project, and shall be constructe~ prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet ~n height
an6 shall be ma6e with masonry block an~ a gate which screens
the bins from external view.
All street l~ghts and other outdoor liebring snell De shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Bu~lO~ng
and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply w~th the
requirements of RIverside County Ordinance NO. 655 and the
R~vers~de COunty Comprehensive General Plan.
Four (4) Class lI b~cycle racks shall De provided ~n
convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the
project area.
.3-i.
~ PP 10864 / APPEAL
·
APTS VAC VAC
SCHOOL
vAc $ vAC
I. VAC ~0~
~ APTS ~ "' ;' . VAC ~ '
I b~ ~ ~EEWAY VAntAgE
" ~ ' ~ ~ ~NI~ N~NT
I
I
; I
· ?P 15864 - Amend #2
Apt11 14, 1989
Page 3
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to
Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard
Specifications.
Projects creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance
control and slope easements as approved by the Road
Department.
All entrance driveways shall be channelized with concrete
curb and gutter to prevent back on parking and interior
drives from entering/exiting driveways for a minimum
distance of 50 feet measured from face of curb.
The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient
public offsite rights of way to provide for full width
right of way On "A" Street. Said right of way shall be
improved to the nearest paved maintained road in accordance
with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A.
(44'/66'} at a grade and alignment approved by the Road
Commissioner. Curb and gutter on project site only;
asphalt concrete dike may be required for drainage control.
Street lights shall be installed in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads
constructed or improved within the development. The County
Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the
development is within an existing .assessmen~ district. If
not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO
for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in
pursuant to Governmental Code Section 56000 st. seq.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections
opposite this project shall be coordinated with this
project and shown on the street improvement plans. Street
design and improvement concept shall be coordinated with PP
9195 and PP 8328.
A striping plan is required for Moraga Road and Rancho
California Road. The removal of the existing striping
shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing
and striping shall be done by County forces with all
incurred costs borne by the applicant.
Vet truly yours,
ohnson
Principal Eng. Technician
LJ:Jw
KENNETH I,. EDWARD! till MARKET ITRII[T
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
cePy
Attention: Regional Team No. __
Area:
Re: PP/o8/.+
A/o. t
have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc.,
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an' environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r31esArea
and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated Nay 3o/11 t) is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
DATE: hip I~tltziY'~
C unty of River, 'ue
TO:
FROM:
RE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: Agril 3.1989
~:~R~~NHENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 10864. Amended No. 2
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No.2
daced ~rch 30, 1989. Our currenc comencs will remain
as scaced in our memo daCed November 18, 1988.
SM:tac
GEN FOaM 4, {Rev 8/87}
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverslee
RIVe~SIDE COUNTY PLANNINO DEPT.
DA~'E:
ATTN: Alex Gann
11-18-88
Steve Hinds, St. SanXtarian, Environmental Health Svcs Div
Plot Plan 10864
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot
Plan 10864 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and
water service$ are available in this area. Prior to any
building plan submittals, the followsrig Xtems will be
required:
"Will-serve" letters from the water and
severing agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for the
swimming pool/spa viII be submitted,
in order to ensure compliance with the
California Administrative Code, California
Health and Safety Code and the Uniform
Buildin~ Code.
SH:tac
6BN. FOI~M 4. (l~v.
OICGOtlO00000000803339330 It
C C00110000000003 3333333001
LOaOOOllOOOOOOOOOOOt3333DOllt,
KENNETH L. EDWARDt I% o. Iox 10S3
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Attention: Regional Team No. {
Area:'''' '
Re: PP Io6 .f
have reviewed this case and' have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc.-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an' environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in
regulations.
Area
accordance with the applicable r~les and
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The Oistrtct's report dated NwJoJIqti) is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
1tel ~i~/~
DATE: ~f,- el,f. ci~'i
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
November 30, 1988
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
Alex Gann
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 10864
This is a proposal to construct an apartment complex in the
Rancho California area. The 22.22 acre site is located on the
southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road.
This site lies on a ridge with little or no tributary offsite
runoff. The developer proposes to drain the site with interior
streets and storm drains. The site plan shows a diversion to the
north of about 4 acres which should drain to the south.
The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula
Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage
fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control
facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan
fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of
other types of new development.
Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff.
These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds
where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted· In order to miti-
gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff,
the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans
and PubZlc Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge· Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar
to the current Area Dralnage Plan fee rate.
Following are the Distrlct's recommendations:
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge
shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate
multiplied by the area of new development. The new
development in this case includes a total of 20.88 acres.
At the current fee rate of 2932 per acre, the mitigation
charge equals $19,q60. The charge is payable to the
Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If
Area Drainage Plan' fees or mitigation charges have al-
ready been paid on this property in conjunction with an
earlier land division or land use case, the developer
should contact the District to ascertain what charges are
actually due.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Plot Plan 1086q
-2- November 30, 1988
The property's street and lot grading sh6uld be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage
area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded dralnage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prlor to the lssuance of permits.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements.
Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and
obstructions·
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the
issuance of permits.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along
with supporting hydrologtc and hydraulic calculations
should be submitted to the District for review and.ap-
proval prior to the issuance of.grading or building
permlts.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Krts Flanigan
of this offlee at 71n/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
cc: Palmer-Namdar Engineering
KF :bab
City Council Minutes January 23, 1990
il
3
P:
~he
PUBLIC
Plo~ Plln NO. 10164 - X~peal of Plannina Couuissions's
a~proval of 335 Unit ADer~-ent CoBalex on 22.22 Aores.
Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:46 p,m, and
explained the process for hearing all interested parties.
Staff Repor~
City Manager Frank Aleshire introduced County of Riverside
Planning staff member laurie Dobson who gave the staff report
outlining the history of the zoning considerations on the
subject property. She explained the basis upon which the
appeal had been filed.
Councilmember Lindemans questioned if the
Quimby Act had been met for this project.
if the park fees had been paid..
provisions of the
He also inquired
N6nutel~1\23\90 -5-
City Council Minutes January 23. 1990
Richard McCatt, principal planner for the county of
Riverside, responded stating that only he didnet know if this
project is subject to park fees.
ADDliCant Presentation
The applicant, Stan Steel, 13555 Plantation Way, Moreno
Valley, addressed the Council, expressing a willingness to
return to the City Council with the specific landscaping plan
showing the percentage of open space and play areas. He also
stated that the figure of 1,800 additional residents would
represent 5-6 residents per apartment, which in his opinion
could not be determined prior to actual occupancy.'
Grant Beckland, 647 Noz~ch Main, Riverside, engineer for the
project, presented a map showing how drainage is being
handled.
Mayor Parks questioned the position of ~he retaining wall
adjacent to the appellants proper=y.
Mr. Beckland showed a map detailing the retaining wall and
percentage of the grade slope at Los Colinas.
Councilmember Lindemans questioned the street access for the
project. Mr. Steel pointed out two points of entry and exi=,
one from Motage Road and one from the cul-de-sac off Rancho
California Road.
City Manager Aleshire requested a report from the developer
regarding the fees being paid for public improvements. The
applicant responded ~het fees were being paid for traffic
signalization, fire mitigation, flood mitigation, Kangaroo
Rat litigation fees, and building permit fees.
APPellant Presentation
Robert Oder, 29923 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, addressed the
City Council speaking in opposition to ~he proposed apartment
development. He addressed ~he history of ~he project and
presented his continuing concerns about the project. He
advised the Council that the project represents a 53%
increase in density over his neighboring apartment project.
Tamer Stein, Esq., of Cox, Castle and Nicholson, 2049 Century
Park East, Los Angeles, representing the appellants outlined
the points covered in her letter to the City Council dated
January 19, 1990. Her testimony stressed concerns regarding
the incompleteness of the project file currently in the
Ht~Jtes\l%23\g(I -6- 02/09/9CI
City council Minutes
January 23, 1990
City's possession. In summary, she stated the environmental
assessment was not complete enough for the Council to support
the recommendation of the county Planning Department.
Robert Oder, St., 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, Temecula, spoke
to the matter of retaining the current topography. In
response to a question from Mayor Parks, he stated that there
is not an existing flood control easement across his
property. In response to a question from Councilmember
Lindemans, Mr. Oder stated the density of his apartment
project is 12.18 units per acre.
Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive #63, Temecula, requested
that the Council consider the fragility of the Empire Creek.
Public InPUt
Ron Fortson, Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District,
requested the City Council allow the School District time to
assess the impact regarding the number of students this
project will generate.
Jean Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual, Temecula, representing the
Temecula School Board requested denial of this project based
on the ~-her of additional pupils it will generate.
Steve Sander, 40213 Holden Circle, Temecula spoke in
opposition to the project because of the limited open space
and because of the lack of input by citizens of Temecula
during the planning process.
Jim A11mon, 43594 Gatewood Way, Temecula stated that there
are already too many apartmetns and too much traffic
congestion.
John Cloghen, 41304 Bravos Court, Temecula spoke in
f
opposition to the staff recommendation, citing the traf ic
congestion and crime rates in rental properties.
Rebuttal
Grant Becklund said there is a need for a flood control
easement and that the school impacts were addressed during
the approval process at the staff level.
City Council Minutes
January 23. 1990
Stan Steele said he believes the developers have adequately
addressed environmental concerns in the planning of this
project. He stated that he would look favorably on a
continuance to allow the developers to explore the Cityts
criteria which differs from that of the County.
The owner, Mr. Tony Boyd responded to a
Councilmember Lindemans that he might not be
the project if fur~cher delays occur.
question from
the builder of
Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 10:15 p.m.
Councilmember Bindsmane spoke regarding the density
considerations and the need to respect the existing
topography.
Mayor Parks expressed his concern regarding the changes in
topography inherent in the design. He also outlined his
concerns about the retaining walls and agreed that the
criteria has changed as a result of the Cityts incorporation
and involvement in these projects.
City Attorney Scott Field outlined the Council's options as
follows:
1. Approve the project and deny the appeal;
2. Approve the project and add new conditions.
Reopen ~he hearing and continue the project to a date
cer~cain with instructions to staff for considerations to
be addressed at the nex~ hearing.
Deny the project subject to staff preparing a resolution
reflecting the findings which confirm the denial.
It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to deny Plot Plan 1086 subject to the
appropriate resolution to be prepared by City staff
reflecting the appropriate findings.
Tony Boyd, owner, responded to a question from Councilmember
Moore, that he would prefer to see the project given the
oppor~cunity to make modifications ra~.herthan compelling them
to star~ over again with the entire development process.
Councilmember Munoz withdrew ~he motion on the floor and
Councilmember Lindemans withdrew the second.
~ i nute~\l \Z3\fO -8- OZ/O~/fO
City Council Minutes
January 23. 1990
Councilmember Birdsall questioned the necessary time frame
needed by the developers =o address the concerns expressed by
the City Council during the deliberations.
It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to continue the meeting for an
additional five (5) minutes.
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to continue the matter "off calendar"
and refer it back to staff.
The motion was unanimously carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS Birdsall, Lindemans
Moore, Munoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None
It wae moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Munoz to extend ~he'meeting to 11:00 p.m. The
motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Lindemans left the chamber at'10:37 p.m.
Minutu\1\Z3\fO -9- 02/Q~/90
BABEL COOK & BECKLUND TEL NO.714-788-5184 NOu.27,90 17:08 P.05
COX. CASTLE 8 NICHOI.SON
November 20, 19G9
FAX
Grant W, Beoklun~,
Gabs1, Cook & Becklund
647 North Main 8treat, Suite 1-B
Riverside, California 92501
Re: P~ot Plan 10864
Dear Mr. Becklu~d:
At the request of the project proponent and the Board,
my clients have reviewed the drawings,received by them from
Mr. Isz~er On November 9, 1989. As you know, the drawings
~ndicate the proposed site of the propoged storm drain that your
client has suggested at a solution to the arainags issues.
· he follo~'ing points represent the initlal items tha~ my
clients wou)d reguire as part of suoh a solution. I want to be
very clear tha~ those points do not represent an offer by my
clients an~, indeed, may not re~ressnt sll of the points thst we
woula w~sh to raise. Thoy are netely those that, Jn the brae[
ti~e since the hearing, we have been able to formulate base~ uFon
the drawing received. As you know, no engineered plane are yet
Ex~en¢oC Pi~e 5, 1
1989
Nove~bcr 20,
Pa~e 2
available to us. ~urther# we are attempting to retaln an
independent engineer to look at the proposal; however, due to the
Thanksgiving weekend, this h~s proved difficult.
Lastly, although we wish in good faith to discuss a
~olution to th~ drainage problmm~, I further went to be olear
that this doos not mean that my clients have waived or
rellnquisbed any ~Isue raised by them at the hearing, including
issue~ related to dengity. We are, however, attempting in good
faith to mettle with your client.
My clients' requirements are:
1. Th~ pipeline is to be constructed at no expense to
thO Odors.
Your client will construct an underground R.C.P.
p t o to accept
r t s a n then
down through the Edison easement to the bottom of
the h~11 into Empire Creek.
The ~ze of ~he pipe is to ~a 24 inches or more to
drain 8 improved acres of 100-year flood waters as
~pproved by the Riverside count~ Roads Department.
At Empire Creek an ener dissipater ls to be
constructed to direct p~pe flow downs=ream, slow
t~e flow of Beavy rains, and pro~ect the sides and
bottom or Empire Creek.
Plans and construction e=e to be sub3ect to the
Odors' review and engineering approval.
'l~cre must be a written and recorded agreement
between the parties. The provisions of the
agreement must become a part of the conditions of
proJec~ approval.
References to ~exieting channels" on the Odors~
properties shall be deleted from all project plans,
diagrams and documents.
G~BEL COOK % 8ECKLUND TEL No.?1~-788-5184
Grant W. B~klun~, ROB
November 20, 1989
Pa~e 3
Nov.27,90 17:10 P.06
The of{st by the Odere of an aaa~ment eh511 expire
within one year If the project is not developed.
We look forward tO your early response.
Tamer C. Stein
TCS:ll-17-O1
Frank J. peaira, ~.E.
Mr. Tony BOy~
Supervisor walt Abraham
RIVER.qlDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Noveltiber Z7,
Rivertide County
Planning Department
County Admlnls~ratLve Center
RIverside, California 92501
Attention: Regional Team No. 1
Klnl Jarre31 Johnson
Ledges and Gentlemen:
Re: Plot Plan 1086q
Supp)emental Report
Approval of Plot Plan 1086q b~ ~lae Plannini Commission ~ss ap-
pealed at s public hearIns before the Riverside County ~oard o~
Supervisor= on November I~, 1989. Following public ~estlmony the
matter was continued until November 28, 1989~ end this DIstrict
was requested to review concerns expressed by Hr. and Mrs. Robert
J. Oder and ~he~r representatives re~arding l~paots on t~eir
pro~,crty due to surface drainage. Prom the proposed proSec~.
The Oders' properly lies southerly of Plot Pltn 1085q and north
of ~rnptre Creek (see attached ExhlOl~ "A"). Their property is
improved ~ith epe~tn,¢nt units. Building controls were less
stringent whvn their property was developed, and they have expe-
rienced flood end sedim~ntatl0rl ~aalage tO their pro arty in the
p~et. A ,or~Lon of the appl~c~n~'s projeo~ sites egout 8 acres,
te neture,~ly tr. Jbu~ary to ~he 0oars~ north boundary at two well
defined
Specific concerns expressed by ~he 0der~ regarding the proposed
pro~ect in¢lude diversion o~ flows concentration of flo~l and
crew. sod ruilo~ due to loss of pervious area on the project site.
They ale0 have expressed eon0ern over vossible discharge of seai-
ment to their property due to grading operations on the proposed
proSeco.
In response to %he Oders* concerns, the project applicant has
offered ~o oonatruc~ s a~orm drain at him expense ~o convey flows
From h~s proJec~ directly ~o Empire Creek, rather ~hen dlscherg-
i~8 ~herq at the t~o existing oon~entrstion poin~a onto the Oders'
property. This offer is eonditioned on the Oders providing an
underground easemen~ across ~heir property aloe6 the wesLerly
boundary as shown on [xhibit "B" a~tached. To date, ~he two
pertl¢~ have ~ot been able to come to en agreement regarding this
proposal.
fiiv~l'side count)
Plannlng Departmen~
fie: Plot Plan lO86q
Supplemental ~eport
November
The Platriot has'reviewed this base In more dat&ll and has the
followin~ observations:
No diversion of flow is involved in the applloant'a pro-
poaal, The draln~g~ facilities mhown on th~ approved
~mended Map ~o. 2 discharge fiats to the Oders' propert~
at two natural, historic noneentration points.
TIle D/strict would require that floWS discharged to the
Oders~ property be r~turned to their nature~ condition
with reapeat to valeairy of flowm ate.m by means of snar,
gy discSpat. ore,. No ooneentretlon or mode)station of flow
is $nyo]vcd in ~be epplieent;e proposal,
Construction of d,ellin~=~ streetam drivewayam etc.m ~n
the proJeot site Will reduce the pervioU8 area available
for Infiltration or rainfall ~o the ~oilm and runoff in
given rainfall event will insreams lu ~he after cxondl-
tion. Constl'uotlon of · storm drain to Endpits Creek as
proposed by the applicant would mitiEate tide lnorease.
Piaohar(e of Bedimexit from the proJeer site will not be a
problem if an adequate erosion control plan Is imple-
mented .durln6 BredinS, After the prodeat is damplated
sedimeut load$n8m will be reduoed from natural
conditions.
In view of the above facts; ~he Discriot recommendm the foliowinE
eondiLions be added to those previously epproved by the Plannin&
Comuxission:
An underground boaorate storm draln should be OOAstructed
ms mho~n In condeft on Exhibit "B" attached hareto, to
oonvey ~he entire 100 yemr flow from the souther]y por-
tion of the propoaed roJao~ to Empire Creek. An enarSy
dimsipetor end/or roo~ slope ah~ll be
prateorion provided
a~ Empire ~reek to prevent erosion of the ohannel banks
and invert, All. facilities shell ba eonntruoted to
tric~ at. endards, The offairs parties or the required
drain Should be oons~rueted prior to any gradin8 opera-
aloha on the proposed projeer.
River~id~ County
Planning Depar'tmenL
he: Plot plen lo86~
Supplem~n~ ~eport
-3- Novembor 27s 1989
A comprehensive cropion contro~ plan shall be develOped~
~nd 3ha~} be tmFZemented Smmedlatel¥ following grading to
prevent depo~iLlou Or debris onto dounstreom proper~iee
or drainS&e ~ac|Zi~leG.
~uestlon5 conoernlng ~hls matter may be referred ~o ~hls office,
O~
Supervisor ~slb AbrSham
Gabele 'Cook end Bcoklund
A~ns Grer, t Bc~klund
Cox, Cmm~]e & Hiohol~on
Attn= Tsmsr Stein
FJ?;seb
Very truly yours,
Chler of Planning Division
MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS
29911 MIRA LOMA DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92:390
(714) 676-5218
November 16, i 990
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, Members of the Planning
Commission, and Planning Staff of Temeculs.
About a year ago, after we had appealed certain provisions of Plot Plan
10864, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors remanded this appl icatlon
and our appeal to the City Council of our newly formed City or Temecula~
Our points of appeal were presented to the Council, followed by the voiced
opinions of other groups and Individuals. FInding sufficient support for the
appeal, yet willing to allow the developer another opportunity to develop hls
land, the Council decided to continue the matter 'off calender'. Now the
matter is to be heard November 19, 1990, by the Temecula Planning
Commission
The Council handled this matter the last time and we presume will
ultimately do so again, utilizing the findings of the Planning Commlsslor~
Therefore we submit our observations to the Council and to the Planning
Commission. We appreciate being noticed of the forthcoming meeting and
anticipate being noticed for the Council hearing
Our Appeal, as outlined in a letter from Tamar C. Stein to the City or
Temecula dated January 19, 1990 was based upon these Issues.
I. Inadequacy of the Environmental Review
2. Density or the project
3. Drainage and Flooding
We have studied Plot Plan 10864 carefully and are pleased that many
changes have been made In response to earlier objections. However, some of
the same problems that faced us before are still there and there are some
new ones as well. They ar~.
A) Inadequacy or the Environmental Review/Drainage and Flooding
We have owned and operated a business on our land rot well over fifteen
years, and by rat the most rrlghtenlng issues to us are those concemlng
protection fromflooding and eroslo~
Storm runoff from the Southerly half of Plot Plan 10864 will flow In a
Southerly direction, straight towards our property. The Plot Plan provides
for an East to West storm drain as well as street flow which in severe
storm conditions might not be adequate. Water, mud and debris will flow to
the southwest comer of the property and It Is shown going into a "20' Storm
Drain Easement" on our property (Mira Loma Apartments, Tract 4040, Lot
two). Although the plot plan as presently drawn Indicates an Easement,
there ls at present no drainage Easement of any kind on the northwest side
of our property. Furthermore, while some talk has been made with regards
to said Easement, absolutely no "good faith" offer has been made by anyone
to acquire such an Easement for any material compensatlon~
There are at present no facilities on our property to accommodate water
from the Emergency Overflow Structures of Plot Plan 10864. Where Is that
water to go? Through our landscaping and subsequently through our
buildings? From our perspective, these look like potential fifteen foot
waterfalls: the waterfall to the West would flow right onto our property;
the waterfall to the East would flow onto tract 8369-I, and subsequently
onto the Northeastem corner of our property.
During major rainstorms, heavy rains would fill the driveways of the
proposed project, and on the Westem driveway it would flow rapidly in a
Southerly direction down the I0 percent grade and pass right by catch
basins clogged wlth debris. The water would then exit the Emergency
Overflow Structure. Where It goes then Is completely unacceptable. The end
of that street Is about 1130 elevation. The natural level there Is II 15
elevation on our property. This waterfall would create great wash outs at
the drop and bring destruction to both properties, periling building 39 of the
proposed project and erodlng hundreds of feet on Mira Loma Apartments land.
The southeast comer of plot plan 10864 has the same problem. The eight
percent grade down 400 feet or the Eastern driveway will pour water
rapidly down the hill, The thousand foot plus storm drain at two percent
grade will not carry much flood so where does It go? The proposed Building
number 33 ls 13 feet higher than the catch basin only a few feet away. The
Emergency Overflow Structure shown is unacceptable as it pours water onto
Tract 8369-1 which has no means of accommodating excess water and
therefore will flood out Rancho Apartments precisely as was done In the
' 100 year" floocL
The current drainage system in that location was designed exclusively rot
Tract 8369-I. It is not large enough for any more water than It currently
carries. The system Carries water from the Levande Place development and
16 houses.
Heavy storms could wash out the end of the Eastern driveway, resulting In
disaster to the proposed buildings 32 and 33 and disaster to the Rancho
Apartments directly to the South
The storm drain which Is Just above the retaining wall along the entire
South boundary or Plot Plan 10864 Is not very specific. Thls wall In some
places exceeds 15 feet and the dirt goes up at a 2-1 slope well above the
wall to the building slabs. Any failure of the wall due to hydraulic problems
would be a disaster to both plot plan 10864 and to the Rancho Apartments
below It. It may In fact be Inappropriate to build such a structure on this
lanGL
The valley to the east of Plot Plan 10864 Is an area of concern. The current
low point for that valley's drainage Is on Plot Plan 10864's land for about
160 feet. Problems during the ' I00 year" flood were due to developed
property washing out. The plan shows they will rill this in at their south
east corner and block any flow with I0 to 15 feet of rill. This will block all
now to the point of wash-out, endangering their buildings, tract 8369-I and
certainly everything downstream.
The issue of Empire Creek will have to be addressed more thoroughly than
has been done so far. To call It a Creek Is an understatement. We have seen
this Creek become a raging torrent of a River during severe rainstorms. The
last such rainstorm tore out sidewalks at the Mira Loma Apartments that
were thirty feet above the level of the creek bed, severely undermined the
foundations of bul Idings, and tore loose large Edison Company Electric Poles,
leaving one of the poles suspended by Its wires. There has been considerable
development in upstream regions that are tributary to Empire Creek, so the
next major rainstorm will create more water riowing In the Creek than
before. In addition, in the Creekbed Immediately downstream of the Mira
Loma Apartments, and adjacent to the Summer Breeze Apartments, there
now exists a 'Sewer Protection and Streambed Stabilizer Structure" (a
Dam). Presence or this Dam, downstream or our property, In concert with
the inevitably greater flows that will result In Empire Creek upstream or
our property due to the increased development in the region, wlII create
great peril throughout the area In the next major rainstorm.
We feel that the · Initial Environmental Study" contained In the Staff Report
is inadequate with respect to these Issues regarding this creek. We feel
that entering a Negative Declaration based upon this report Is improper, that
a closer look into the situation Is called for, possibly mandating an
Environmental Impact Report.
The developers have other alternatives for delivering their water to Empire
Creek; we suggest they consider them. They could Just as well put a
pipellne through the adjacent 'Summer Breeze" Apartments to the west and
then send It down the Creek, not a bit farther than through our property and
posslbly a shorter run of pipe. In fact, the bottom of the hill at the dam
would be a better place for the addition of concentrated flows into the
Creek than on the Mira Loma property where it would have to go abruptly
Into the Creek at a sharp angle relative to the direction of flow of the Creek,
causing serious erosion and other water flow abnormalities that could
become crltlcal during a severe rainstorm.
B) Density of the project
The project has been downscaled from 335 units to 260 units. However,
there ls now a significantly greater number of three bedroom units than
before, and the one bedroom units have been eliminated altogether.
Following Department of Fair Housing stipulations, we therefore will see
the 23% reduction In total unlts leading to only an 11% reduction In the
number of persons, and a 9% reduction In the number or bedrooms. This Is
still a :39% Increase In persons per acre density over and above the density
of the adjacent Mira Loma and Rancho apartment complexes, and is
incompatible with the adjacent single family residences. The present staff
report completely overlooks these adjacent single family residences In the
sections titled 'Surrounding Zoning' and 'Surrounding Land Uses'.
C) New Concerns
I. A Pedestrian Accessway Is mentioned In the start report. Where are the
schoolchildren to go after they exit the Southwest comer or plot plan
10864? Are they to trespass our property, walk down to the Creekbed and
wade across the Creek In the vlclnlty of the Edlson Substation? Such a
mixture of children, high voltage electricity, and flooding would be unwise.
The expense of the Improvements necessary to make this pathway safe
would be extremely high.
2. Where is the management office for apartment rental and maintenance?
Where Is the service/maintenance facility for the buildings and grounds?
3. We are concerned about the garbage collection procedures outlined in the
staff report. Will garbage cans sit In front of garages? If garbage sits
outsidethe apartments, dogs and cats will stir it up and the wlndwlll blow
It around - probably onto the catch basins cloggingup the storm drsln~
4. Howdo you get into the units fromthe street? How are deliveries to be
made? It ls a long walk around the end of the building to the front door on
the side opposite the street.
5. Where are the windows? 5ome Inner rooms appear to have no natural
II~L
6. In plan E, It appears that the back bedrooms and the garage occupy the
same space.
7. These are mostly three bedroom units. Where are all the children going
to play? One pool and one tot yard does not offer much play space for so
many children, and the large open space In the middle of the lot is rather far
away rot children living In the furthest away units.
In summary, we still seriously question several aspects or Plot Plan 10864.
we look rotward to seeing these questions addresse~! In the near future.
51ncerely,
Helon Moore Oder
Robert J. Oder
Robert L. Oder
ITEM #8
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Planning Department f27
December 3, 1990
Request Continuance for CUP No. 4
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 4
to December 17, 1990
The applicant is requesting a continuance for Conditional Use Permit No. 4 from the
December 3 meeting to the December 17 meeting. The applicant has filed this request
due to the need for additional information from the Homeowners Association for the
condominiums adjacent to the project site. Staff feels that this information is
pertinent and therefore recommends that a continuance be granted by the Planning
Commission.
SP:ks
STAFFRPT\CUP4
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 157
Prepared By: Karen Castro
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
McDonald's Corporation
McDonald's Corporation
A revised permit to allow for construction of a
playland in an existing fast food outdoor dining
area.
28100 Front Street, the east side of Front Street
approximately 1,500 feet North of Rancho California
Road.
M-M (Manufacturing-Medium)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Front Street/Interstate 15
C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial )
Interstate 15
M-M (Manufacturing-Medium)
N/A
Fast Food Restaurant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Front Street/Interstate 15
Retail
Interstate 15
Auto Repair/Service Station
No. of Acres:
Square Footage of Site:
Structures:
1.5 acres
65,3~0 sq.ft.
Site is developed
with a ~,936 sq.ft.
fastfoodrestaurant
STAFFRPT\PP157 1
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The site was originally approved for the
development of a q,936 square foot fast food
restaurant under Plot Plan No. 8500, by the
Riverside County Planning Department. An
application for revision to that approval was
submitted August 31, 1990 to the City of Temecula
Planning Department requesting to construct a
Ronald McDonald Playland (approximately 600
square feet) in an existing outdoor dining area
(approximately 1,200 square feet).
The project was presented to the City of Temecula
Development Review Committee on November 8,
1990. There were no agency comments at that time.
Area Settin.q
The project site is a triangular parcel bounded by
Front Street on the west and north, and 1-15 on the
east. The site is located in a developed
commercial/industrial area. The surrounding area
is developed with general retail, restaurant, auto
repair, and light industrial/warehouse uses.
The applicant is proposing to Construct a children~s
playland in the existing outdoor dining area located
on the north side of the restaurant. A fence
constructed of a combination of masonry with brick
veneer and wrought iron with 16 inch square lighted
pilasters spaced at approximately every 12 feet is
proposed to enclose the play area.
Circulation/Traffic/Parkinq
The proposed improvements will have no measurable
impact on circulation, traffic and parking. The
existing parking, as approved under Plot Plan No.
8500, is adequate to serve the site.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed playland will be screened with a
masonry and wrought iron fence. Masonry will be
finished with brick veneer to match the existing
restaurant. Concrete pilasters will be stuccoed to
match the existing restaurant.
The play equipment is approximately 9'8" in height
and will not exceed the height of the existing
building fascia.
STAFFRPT\PP157 2
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Compatibility with Surrounding Properties
The project site is located in a developed
commercial/industrial area and is surrounded
predominantly by general commercial uses. The
proposed playland is a typical accessory use to fast
food restaurants and will largely be screened from
view by location and the proposed wall.
The project is designated commercial on the
Southwest Area Plan. The proposed project
complies with the general policies for commercial
uses. It is anticipated that the project will be
consistent with the City~s forthcoming general plan.
The proposed project is a minor alteration to an
existing building and is a Class 3 categorical
exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines.
The proposed use will not have a substantial
adverse effect on abutting properties or the
permitted use thereof.
The proposed use will not inhibit or restrict
future ability to use active or passive solar
energy systems.
3. The project will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
These findings are supported by Staff
analysis, maps and exhibits associated with
this application and herein incorporated.
The proposed use is commercial in nature and
conforms with the existing surrounding uses.
There is reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the general
plan once it is adopted.
There is a probability that the project will not
deter, or interfere with the future adopted
general plan if the proposed use is ultimately
inconsistent with the new general plan.
STAFFRPT\PP157 3
The lawful conditions stated in this approval
are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 90- and APPROVE Plot
Plan No. 157 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval, based on the
findings contained in the Staff Report.
KC:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PP157 4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 157 TO
PERMIT OPERATION OF A PLAYLAND AT AN EXISTING
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AT 28100 FRONT STREET.
WHEREAS, McDonald's Corporation filed Plot Plan No. 157 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP157 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 157 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
STAFFRPT\PP157 2
{ 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed project is a minor alteration to an existing building and
is a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 157 for the operation and construction of a playland located at L)8100 Front
Street subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION
Resolution.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP157 3
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 157.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP157 4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No, 157
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Project Description:
Construct a 600 square foot playland in an outdoor dining
area of an existing fast food restaurant.
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a play area
in an existing fast food restaurant outdoor dining area.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers and employees from any claims, action or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers or employees
to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning this
approval. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim action or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. The permittee shall not, thereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on September 17, 1992.
The development shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan
marked Exhibit "A", or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one ~ 1 )
year or more, this approval shall be come null and void.
Prior to issuance of building permits, engineered plans shall be submitted to
the Department of Building and Safety showing anchoring and attachment
mechanisms for play equipment.
STAFFRPT\PP157 1
Gates providing access to the play area shall be self-closing and self-latching,
The height of the play equipment shall not exceed the height of the existing
building fascia.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
STAFFRPT\PP157 2
McDonald's
McDonald's
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No,: Plot Plan No. 11654
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: 1. Approval
2. Adopt Negative Declaration
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Carlos and Emma Alvafez
REPRESENTATIVE:
Andrews/Rothenburger, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
Develop 4 mixed use retail/industrial office
buildings on approximately 2.5 acres.
LOCATION:
Approximately 300 feet northeast of Del Rio Road,
between Calle Cortez Street and Las Haciendas
Street.
EXISTING ZONING:
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
M-M (Manufacturing - Medium)
M-M ( Manufacturing - Medium )
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
Total Landscaping:
Total Parking:
2.5 acres
13,791 sq.ft. (13%)
114 spaces
Buildinq A
Total Square Feet:
Buildinq B
Total Square Feet:
Buildinq C
Total Square Feet:
Buildinq D
Total Square Feet:
6,820
4,773
11,328
12,287
Grand Total Square Feet:
35,208
Total Building Coverage:
31,918
STAFFRPT\PP11654 I
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Plot Plan No. 11654 was originally submitted to the
County of Riverside Planning Department on
November 30, 1989 for processing, but
subsequently was transferred to the newly
incorporated City of Temecula on May 5, 1990 for
further processing.
On August 30, 1990, this project was reviewed by
the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluated the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. Thecomments
by the Pre-DRC meeting included the following:
1. Traffic Impacts
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff informed
the applicant in writing the required supplemental
materials in order to address the Pre-DRC's
Concerns.
On November 8, 1990, Plot Plan No. 1165~, was
reviewed by the Formal Development Review
Committee; and, was determined that the project, as
designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate
the DRC's concerns. The Development Review
Committee has forwarded a recommendation of
approval subject to conditions.
Plot Plan No. 11654 is a proposal to develop four (4)
mixed use retail/industrial office buildings on
approximately 2.5 acres. Buildings A and B {see
site plan) are composed of office and fabrication
floor areas and combined, have a total of 4,828
square feet of office floor area and 6,765 square feet
of fabrication floor area. Buildings C and D are
composed of office, fabrication and retail floor area
and combined have 6,507 square feet of office area,
9,974 square feet of fabrication area, and 7,13~,
square feet of retail floor area. A portion of each
building is composed of a second story office use.
Buildings C and D are the only buildings to have
retail use. All four (4) buildings (A, B, C, and D)
combined, have a total of 11,335 square feet of
office area, 16,739 square feet of fabrication area
and 7,134 square feet of retail area. The proposed
development has been designed in accordance with
the standards of the M-M {Manufacturing - Medium)
zone.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 2
ANALYSIS:
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
and accepted the findings and mitigation measures
as specified in the Traffic Assessment Report
prepared for Plot Plan No. 1165~,; and has
determined that the proposed project will only have
a 2% impact on the a.m. and p.m. peak hour
intersection volumes in the project area and is
therefore not expected to cause significant impacts
on the adjacent roadway system.
Desi.qn Considerations
The proposed mixed use retail/industrial office
buildings have been designed in accordance with
the standards of Ordinance No. 3~,8 and Ordinance
No. ~,60. The circulation pattern for the proposed
project uses Calle Cortez and Las Haciendas as the
projectis main access. Within the project, vehicular
traffic flow is adequate and acceptable. In
addition, the project is providing approximately
13,791 square feet of landscape area which equals to
approximately 13% of the overall project site.
Landscaping is being provided along the entire
perimeter of the project, and decorative block walls
are proposed on the eastern and western side of the
property. A landscape plan will be submitted and
approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
The proposed buildings consist of split face
concrete block with painted plaster and are
contemporary in appearance, and have been
designed to incorporate wood trellis, metal awning
fascia, clear glass, and reflective glass.
Staff has reviewed the site plan and architectural
design of the project and finds it to be consistent
with City development code standards and with the
overall architectural design found in the City.
The design of the project and landscape plan will be
illustrated at the Planning Commission meeting.
Parking
The proposed project meets the required parking
set forth in Ordinance 3~,8, Section 18.12. The
project is providing 6~, standard parking spaces, 23
parallel parking spaces, 23 compact parking spaces,
STAFFRPT\PP11654 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
and 4 handicapped parking spaces with a total of 114
parking spaces.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
land use designation of commercial, which includes
commercial, distribution warehouses and similar
industrial uses. In addition, Staff finds it probable
that this project will be consistent with the new
General Plan when it is adopted.
An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determine that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment, no
significant impact would result to the natural or
built environment in the City because the mitigation
measures described in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 11654 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The project is consistent with existing
site development standards in that it
proposes articulated architectural
features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and
anticipated commercial development
standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The project is in conformance with
existing and anticipated land use and
design guidelines and recommendations
as discussed in the project analysis.
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 4
3. The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The proposed use conforms with those
uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing M-M
(Manufacturing-Medium) land use
designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Fact in Support of Findinq
A. Adequate area is provided for all
proposed structures.
Area for adequate landscaping is
provided along the projects public and
private frontages.
The internal circulation/parking plan
should not create traffic conflicts as
design provisions include driveways
and parking areas in conformance with
adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The conditions stated in the approval
are based on mitigation measures
necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project
as discussed in the above Findings,
Facts, body of the Staff Report, and
Initial Environmental Study.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
STAFFR PT\PP1165u, 5
Fact in Support of Findinq
The proposal is similar in compatibility
with surrounding land uses.
Retail/manufacturing facilities are
currently existing adjacent to the
proposal.
Adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed facilities
in terms of landscaping, parking, and
internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
Fact in Support of Finding
The proposed project is consistent with
the current zoning of the subject site
(M-M; Manufacturing-Medium), and
also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan
(SWAP) designation of commercial.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The project currently proposes two
independent driveways accessing Las
Haciendas and Calle Cortez which have
been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
Fact in Support of Findinq
A Negative Declaration is recommended
for adoption. Impact mitigation is
realized by conformance with the
project's Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT\PP1165q. 6
10.
11.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
Fact in Support of Findin.c]
This is clearly represented in the site
plan and the project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
Fact in Support of Findinq
Reference the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, Initial Study, and Conditions
of Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 1165~,; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-
approving Plot Plan No. 1165L~; based
on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
OM:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Site Plan
B. Exterior Elevations
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 7
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11654
TO CONSTRUCT 4 MIXED USE RETAIL/INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE BUILDINGS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 300'
NORTHEAST OF DEL RIO ROAD, BETWEEN CALLE
CORTEZ STREET AND LAS HACIENDAS STREET AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'5 PARCEL NOS. 921-050-016-2 AND
921-050-020-5.
WHEREAS, Carlos and Emma Alvafez filed Plot Plan No. 1165~, in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
| 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 1
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 1165u, proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 2
d)
e)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 11654 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The project is consistent with existing
site development standards in that it
proposes articulated architectural
features and site amenities
commensurate with existing and
anticipated commercial development
standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
Fact in Support of Finding
The project is in conformance with
existing and anticipated land use and
design guidelines and recommendations
as discussed in the project analysis.
f)
g)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The proposed use conforms with those
uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site~s existing M-M
(Manufacturing-Medium) land use
designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Fact in Support of Findinq
A. Adequate area is provided for all
proposed structures.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 3
h)
i)
j)
Area for adequate landscaping is
provided along the projects public and
private frontages.
The internal circulation/parking plan
should not create traffic conflicts as
design provisions include driveways
and parking areas in conformance with
adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Fact in Support of Findin.q
The conditions stated in the approval
are based on mitigation measures
necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project
as discussed in the above Findings,
Facts, body of the Staff Report, and
Initial Environmental Study.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The proposal is similar in compatibility
with surrounding land uses.
Retail/manufacturing facilities are
currently existing adjacent to the
proposal.
Adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed facilities
in terms of landscaping, parking, and
internal traffic circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 4
k)
I)
m)
n)
Fact in Support of Findinq
The proposed project is consistent with
the current zoning of the subject site
(M-M; Manufacturing-Medium), and
also consistent with the adopted
Southwest Area Community Plan
(SWAP) designation of commercial.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
Fact in Support of Findinq
The project currently proposes two
independent driveways accessing Las
Haciendas and Calle Cortez which have
been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
Fact in Support of Findinq
A Negative Declaration is recommended
for adoption. Impact mitigation is
realized by conformance with the
project~s Conditions of Approval.
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
Fact in Support of Findinq
This is clearly represented in the site
plan and the project analysis.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 5
Fact in Support of Findin.q
RefereK/ce the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, Initial Study, and Conditions
of Approval.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
| 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 1165~ to construct ~, mixed use retail/industrial office buildings located
approximately 3001 northeast of Del Rio Road, between Calle Cortez Street and Las
Haciendas Street and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-050-016-2 and 921-050-
020-5 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION u,. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
STAFFRPT\PP1165L~ 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof· held
on the __ day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 1165~,.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP11654 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 11654
Project Description: 4 Mixed Use Retail/
Industrial Office Buildinqs
Approximately :2.5 Acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-050-016-2
921-050-020-5
on
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the development of four (4)
mixed use retail/industrial office buildings with 7,134 square feet of retail
area, 11,335 square feet of office area, and 16,739 square feet of fabrication
area, with a grand total of 35,208 square feet situated approximately 300 feet
northeast of Del Rio Road, between Calle Cortez Street and Las Haciendas
Street on 2.5 acres.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 11654. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 11654 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department~s Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PP11654
10.
11.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with
Ordinance No. 655.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (:3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 3u,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
A minimum of 114 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. 11~, parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on u,
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of ~, handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at __
or by telephone "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County
of Riverside Department of Health transmittal dated April 6, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 2
12.
13.
lq..
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Planning Department
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
School District
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit C {Color Elevations).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
This project is located within a liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any
building permit by the Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended
structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and
geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development
is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
The applicant shall comply with the Riverside County Fire Department
transmittal recommendations dated November 6, 1990.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 3
23.
2q.
25.
26.
27.
28.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approyal
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
Ten (10) Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Department of Buildin.q 8 Safety
29. The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two (2)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
STAFFRPT\PP11654 4
30. The developer shall receive written clearance from the followin9 agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Plannin9 Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
31.
The developer shall submit four {b,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2q"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
32.
The developer shall submit four (~1) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
35.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-d-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
36. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
37.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
38.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
39.
The subject site is in Flood Zone A-15 subject to flooding depths as
established by the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Prior to the approval of any
plans, this project shall comply with the rules and regulations of FEMA for
development within Flood Zone "A", which includes obtaining a letter of map
STAFFRPT\PP11654 5
revision from FEMA.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 6
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
R I VER$ I DE COUNTY PLANN I NG DEPT. OAt[:
,4: ._ ~ ,
~ONMEHTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 11654
04-06-90
The Environmental Health Services has revlewed Plot
Plan 11654 and has no oblectlons. Sanltarv sewer and water
services are available in thls area. Prior to bulld~no plan
submittal. the followlno items w21t be submitted:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewer~no
agencies.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a
c~[~__!l.~L from the Environmental Health
Serv2ces H~zardous Materials Manaoement Branch
(Jon Mohorosk~, 35~-5055). will be re~u~red
indlcatlna that the Dronect has been cleared for:
a. Underoround storaue tanks.
b, Hazardous Waste Generator Servxces.
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in
accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
SM:wdl
cc: Jon Mohoroski. Hazardou~ Materials Branch
APR 0 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PJ, NNING DEPARTMENT
RIVRRSIDR COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN GOOPERA'rlON WITH 'rile
OALIPORNIA OEPA~I'MEN*t O~ PO~IITHY
AN~ FIRE PROTECTION
GLeN j, NBWMAN
FIRP- CHIEF
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
~,4.Z09 OASI~ STREET. SUI~IL
INDIO, CA 92ZOl
~ov~mher 6, leg0
PLANNING & ENO1NRERING
3760 IiTH ~TRBET
RIV'BI~IDEo CA 93501
(vt~) 275-~777
TO: CITY OF TENECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLOT PIAN 11654
With respect t: the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot
plan, the Fire Department recommends =ha followin2 fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recoinized
fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construction of all commercial buildin2s uain2 the procedure ae=ablished
in Ordinance
Provide or show chars exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the Job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x~"xl~x2~), will be located not has than 25 feet or more than
165 feet from any portion of the buildin2 as measured alone approved
vehicular travelways. The re~uired firs flay shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the ayecam.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflec~ chan2es in desi2n. constructi3n t~pe. area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnis~ one copy of =ha water ayecam plane to
=ha Fire Department ~er review. Plans shall annform =~ the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing. and, =ha eye=am shall mat the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be siined/approved by a reSistsred civil eneineer
and the local vICar company with the followins certi~ieatiou, 'Z certify
that ~a design of the water system ie in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
Install a complete fire sprinkler eyste~ in all bulldines requirinS a
£ire flow of l~OO GPM or greater. THe post indicator valve an~ fire
department connection shall be locates to the francs within 50 feet of
a hydranti and a min/mum of 25 feet frown the ~ulldin2(s). A sEa=amen=
that the building(s) will ~e automatically ~ira sprinklered must be
tncludcd ce ~Hs title page of the bullSing plane.
RE: FF 11654 Page 2
Install a euperviesd wscer~low monitQ~in8 {ire slam system. Plans must be
Submitted to the Fire Depar:men~ for approval prier eo insta!latioe, as
re~,ired by the Uniform $ulldin~ Code,
In lieu of fire sprinkle~ raqulraments, building(s) must bs area saps:died
into ~quare foot compartments, approved b~ the FlEa Depar~menc, as pet
Section ~05 (e) of the Uniform ~uildln8 Code.
9. A statement ~hat the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
mus~ appear on the ti~le page of ~he building plans.
Install panic hardware and exit siena as per Chapter 33 of :he UnlZc~m
Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where e~lt signs are re~u~red
by Section 331~
II. 6errsin deei=nated area~ will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
t2. Install portable fire extinguishers with a ~inimum rating oE 2A-10BC.
Contest a certified extin~uiaher compan~ ~cr pro~er placement of equipment.
~riar to issuance of building permits, the applicant/~eveloper shall
'De reepo~sible to submit · check or money order in the amount of $558,00
~o the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Prior tn the i~euance of building permits, the ~evelcpe= shell deposit
wl~h the CiC~ of Temaaula. a check or mone~ order e~ualin8
ehe s~,m oP 25~ per squ~re foot as ni~iZation ~or fire ~ro=ectio~ impacts.
THis e~ount must ~e submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
~5. Final condiu!one ~iil be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Euilain~ ~na Barely Office.
kll qu~stio~e roSa=aim~ =ha meanin8 of conditions shall be referred to the
Plannin~ ~nd EnMineerin~ shelf.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief [ira Department Planne~
Laura Ca~:al, Firs
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Carlos and Emma Alvafez
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27999 Front Street
Temecula, CA 92390
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 31, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Las Haciendas Plaza
Plot Plan No. 1165L1
Location of Proposal:
Approximately 300 feet northeast of
Del Rio Road, between Calle Cortez
Street and Las Haciendas Street
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP11654 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11654 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP1165~I 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation ) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
¥~..s Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP1165~ ~,
15.
16o
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/oF goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP1165u, 5
17.
18o
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP1165u, 6
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP11654 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c,d,f.
1.e.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
Water
3.a,d-h.
3.b.
Maybe. This project site was determined by a geotechnical
investigation that the site does have some potential for liquefaction.
However, proper mitigation measures will be enforced in order to bring
liquefaction to a level of insignificance.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering. Further
analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required.
No. The proposed project will not create any significant impacts
regarding geologic features or conditions. No evidence of faulting was
found and indications of mass movement or major landsliding have not
been observed or reported on the site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant,
but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural
vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and
hydroseeding disturbed areas after grading.
Yes. The project site has some potential for liquefaction. However,
recommendations concerning liquefaction mitigations will be adhered
through the design and construction of this project.
No. The proposed project will not result in any substantial changes in
air quality or movement.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on any
water courses or supplies and the project lies outside of all 100 year
flood zones. Furthermore, the project will be free of ordinary storm
flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the approval plans.
Maybe. The proposed project will be composed of approximately 57% of
impermeable surface area. Thus, possibly allowing for changes in
absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff on the subject site. However, the amount of runoff water will
not be significant and will receive subsequent review.
STAFFRPT\PP1165~, 8
3.c.
Maybe. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption.
However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will offset the water
absorption rate. Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets
and channels.
3.i.
Maybe, The proposed project is located within Flood Zone A-15 which
is subject to flooding depths. However, prior to the approval of any
plans, the project shall comply with the rules and regulations of FEMA.
Plant Life
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact regarding
plant life,
Animal Life
No. Presently, the proposed project site is vacant and native animal
species have been displaced. Thus, no substantial impacts will be
imposed on any animal life.
Noise
6.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant impact on noise nor
expose people to severe noise levels.
Liqht and Glare
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mt, Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of
low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid interference
with the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV
lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial alteration of
the present or planned land use of the area.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposal will not increase the consumption rate of any natural
or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10.a.
Maybe. If the operating tenant uses any hazardous materials in their
operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan would be
submitted to the City.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 9
10.b.
Maybe. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. However, in
any event, if street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated
with the City and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or
growth rate of the human population in the area.
Housin.q
12.
No. The proposal will not affect existing housing or create additional
demand.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c-e.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial impact on
vehicular movement, parking, or existing transportation systems.
13.b.
Maybe. The proposed use will require new parking facilities which will
be provided on-site.
13.f.
Maybe. Increased traffic hazards may result due to the proposed
development. Mitigation measures will be utilized to reduce this
hazard.
Public Services
l~.a,b,e.
Yes. The proposed retail/industrial office use will require public
services in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public
facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The incremental
impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed.
Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need for
services over the long term.
lq.c,d,f.
No. The proposed project will not have a substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
Energy
15.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy or increase demand of existing sources of energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for new systems or
substantial alteration to utility services.
STAFFRPT\PP1165q 10
Human Health
17.a,b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are used on site, then that may create
a potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be used at the
site, a plan for their use and disposal will be submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic view
open to the public. However, emphasis should be placed on the
building~s relationship to the surrounding area.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse effects to historic
structures, cultural values, or restrict religious or sacred uses in the
area.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. This project will not substantially degrade the quality of the
environment or reduce the habitat for a plant or animal species due to
the fact that the project is in an existing urbanized area. However, if
a project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County
as habitat for the endangered Stephen ' s Kangaroo R at. T he project w i II
be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation Plan.
21 .b.
No. The proposed retail/industrial office buildings will not have the
potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals.
21 .c.
No. The project does have individually limited impacts, however, if
these impacts are cumulatively considered, they do not have a
significant impact on the overall environment.
21 .d.
No. This project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. All regulations and standards will
be imposed and maintained on the project so that adverse effects are
minimized or eliminated.
STAFFRPT\PP11654 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
October 31, 1990
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP1165u,
VICINITY MAP
M -SC
CZ ;3173
,':'P-S
CZ41:~3
CZ 915
//`% M' M
· , CZ
CZ.
Zoning Map
zz~s~/
N
L
q,..
,~'SX/'f/Sz / 2Z)
~o
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 1165~
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
{ Quimby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
| Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
iADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 27
Condition No. N/A
Condition No.
Condition No.
Condition No. N/A
Letter dated
November 6, 1990
Condition No. 37
STAFFRPT\PP11650, 7
ITEM #11
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 126
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration
2. Adopt the Resolution Approving
Plot Plan No, 126
3. Approve Plot Plan No. 126
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Bank of Commerce
Architects Coorobs, Mesquita, Inc.
To construct a two story bank building with 10,620
square feet of floor area and a two story office
building with 6,q80 square feet of leasable floor
area.
the easterly side of Jefferson Avenue abutting the
northerly side of the Santa Gertrudis Creek.
M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial)
North: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
South: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
East: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
West: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
Not requested.
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Santa Gertrudis Creek
Vacant
Jefferson Avenue
STAFFRPT\PP126 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
No. of Acres:
Lot Coverage:
Total Building Floor Space:
Total Leasable Floor Space:
Proposed Uses: Bank
Office Building
Parking Provided:
Interior Planting: (approx.)
1.37 net acres
17,200 sq. ft.
16,650sq.ft.
10,620sq.ft.
6,480 sq.ft.
76 spaces
14,000sq.ft.
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
The project is to construct a two story bank
building with 10,620 square feet of floor space and
a two story office building with 6,480 square feet of
floor area.
Geoloqic Hazards
The geotechnical investigation prepared in
conjunction with the site's underlying parcel map
concluded that the potential for liquefaction is low
and that faults encountered on the western side of
the parcel map site are considered inactive in
accordance with the criteria of the State Division of
Mines and Geology. No setback zone for human
occupancy structures was recommended. The
County Geologist reviewed the report and found
that it meets the requirements of the Alquist Priolo
Act.
Flood Hazards and Drainaqe
A portion of the site is designated as Flood Zone A.
However, the Santa Gertrudis Creek is an improved
flood control channel where it abuts the site. The
entire site of the underlying parcel map has been
raised more than one foot above the flood level as
approved by the County Flood Control District.
The County is preparing an application to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to have the
Flood Zone A designation removed. The County
Flood Control District has commented that the area
of the site's underlying Parcel Map No. 23561-1 will
be free of ordinary storm flood hazards when
improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the approved plans. The site is located within
the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudls Valley Area
STAFFRPT\PP126 2
Drainage Plan and is subject to Area Drainage Plan
fees payable prior to issuance of permits. The site
will be graded to drain toward Jefferson Avenue.
Access and Internal Circulation
A driveway u,0 feet in width provides adequate
access to the site. All interior drive aisles are at
least 2u, feet in width and can accommodate two-way
traffic circulation. The major drive aisles are 28
feet in width in order to facilitate on-site traffic
circulation and access by emergency fire vehicles.
Parking
The site plan indicates 76 parking spaces which is
adequate to meet the parking requirement of one
space per 250 square feet for banks, and one space
per 200 square feet for offices.
Loadinq Zones
Ordinance 3~,8 requires two loading spaces for
commercial or industrial developments with 7,500 to
10,,999 square feet of gross floor areas. The
required dimensions of a loading space are 10 feet in
width by 35 feet in length. The site plan shows one
loading space 10 feet wide and 35 feet long.
Section 11.5 of the M-SC Chapter of the zoning code
allows modifications of or waivers to a development
standard when the standard is inappropriate for the
proposed use and the exception will not be contrary
to public health and safety. A survey of local office
suppliers established that office supplies are
delivered in vans rather than larger delivery
vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to divide the
one long loading space shown on the site plan into
two spaces in order to satisfy the requirement for
loading zones.
Landscapinq
M-SC development standards require a landscape
strip at least 10 feet deep adjacent to street right-
of-way lines. A landscape strip 20 to 25 feet deep
is shown on the site plan. Interior planting exceeds
lu,,000 square feet and is more than adequate to
satisfy the requirement to landscape 10% of the site.
STAFFRPT\PP126 3
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The site is zoned Manufacturing - Service
Commercial and is designated for commercial uses by
the Southwest Area Plan. The proposed bank and
office buildings are consistent with the existing
zoning and land use designation.
An Initial Study was prepared for Plot Plan No, 126
and is attached to this Staff Report (see Attachment
A). Staff recommends adoption of a Negative
Declaration for Plot Plan No. 126.
The proposed bank and office buildings will
be consistent with the Area Plan land use
designation and the zone in which they will be
located.
There is a reasonable probability that the
proposed land use will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other appIicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances,
The project will not constitute an adverse
impact on surrounding land uses in that
runoff from the site will not drain toward
adjacent properties and the project is of
similar use to surroundln9 development.
The site is adequate for the proposed use in
that parking, internal traffic circulation, and
landscaping are adequate and meet all
applicable requirements.
The site has adequate access from a public
street, Jefferson Avenue,
The site is free from ordinary storm flood
hazards, and the potential for liquefaction
STAFFRPT\PP126 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
can be adequately mitigated.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 126;
ADOPT Resolution 90-
No, 126; and
approving Plot Plan
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 126 based on the
analysis and findings contained herein and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval,
SW: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
5.
Development Fee Checklist
Conditions of Approval
Resolution
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
STAFFRPT\PP126 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO,: Plot Plan No. 126
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
( K-Rat )
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation }
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
{ Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 24
Condition No.
Condition No. 43
Condition No, 42
Condition No.
Condition No. 9
Condition No.
STAFFRPT\PP126
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 126
Project Description: To construct a 2 story
bank and a 2 story office buildinq
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-200-058
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a two story bank and a two
story office building of 17,200 square feet floor area.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 126. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on December 3, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 126 marked Exhibit 1, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Transportation Engineering Division~s Conditions of Approval,
which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PP126 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated October 9, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5z~6 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated
November 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Geologist's transmittal for the underlying Parcel Map No. 2:33561 dated July 26,
1988, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three |:3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. :3~,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of 77 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~,8. 77 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit 1. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~,
inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit 1. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectori zed sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at __
or by telephone
STAFFRPT\PP126 2
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit 2.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a
California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the
Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or
subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to
exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation
Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the
applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as
STAFFRPT\PP126 3
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
25.
One (1) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area .
26.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
27.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
28.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
29.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Buildinq and Safety Department
30°
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection.
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances
inspection.
Allow two (2)
prior to final
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
STAFFRPT\PP126 4
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
31. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise.
32.
The developer shall submit four (u,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u,"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
33.
The developer shall submit four (q} copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
3q.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
35.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
36.
The developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all
fees prior to the approval of plans.
37. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit.
38.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
39.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
STAFFRPT\PP126 5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
41.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City stating that the
developer or any future owner of the subject property will not protest any
Assessment District formed for the purpose of constructing an interchange or
overpass at Date Street and 1-15.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
43.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PP126 6
RiVER>iDE courlc,u
PLAnrlirlG DEPARCIi1ERC
July 26, 1988
Schaefer Otxon Associates
2168 South Hathaway Street
Santa Aria, California 92705
Attention: Hr. Paul hvls
Hr. Jimas J. ieaver
$UBOECT:
Alqutst-Prtolo Spaeta1 Studies Zone
LIquefaction Hazard
Job 80-245
Parcel Nap No. 23561
County Geologtc Report No. 516
Rancho Ce~tfornle Area
Gentlemen:
te have revtfded your report entltled 'Geotechntcaq Investigation, A Portton of
North Jefferson Business Park (Phase 4), P.M. No. 23561 (Formfly
19581-1), Pancho CaltfornSa, CA,' dated June 1, 1988, and your revhed report
dated Ju~y 12o 1988.
~(our report determined that:
1. The faults encountered tn trenches along the western part of the
property ere consldered to be 1ntra-Pauba (Pleistocene age)
desplacements end ire considered to be Inactive, tn accordance wtth
crtterla Of the Caltforote Stlte Division of Hines and kohgy.
2. The 100-year probable earthquake affecting the stte resulting from an
event on the thtttier*Elstnore (~S}domar) fault ts expected to be 6.0
magnitude, rlth a peak horizontal ground acceleration
3. The likelihood of liquefaction related ground movement durtng a
Ikgnttude 6.5 event Is considered to be 1or, The liquefaction
lentil1 ts considered to be ve~ lw for site so¶ls considering m
~gn4tude 6.0 design earthquake.
4. The potent¶a1 for seismic eettlemnt end differential compactSon ts
constdertd ver~ led.
S. The potentSal for Tandslldtng Is considered to be ver/rmot,.
e
Schaefer Dixon ~soctetes
- 2 o Ouly 26, 1988
6. The potential for eirthqueke tnduced flooding, tsunamts znd setches ts
considered to be vt~ lo~.
The potential for sympathetic fault movement'on the zone of tnecthe
/ault~ encountered tn the trenches, as t result of sttsmtc event on the
nearby Wildmr fmult, ts considered to be low.
8. The potential for lurch(rig and hteral spreads tn the ereas adjacent to
Santa 2ertrudts Creek my exist at the southeasterly property boundary.
Tour report recmwended:
No setback zone for human occupancy Structures ts recommended w~thln
the boundaries of the subject property.
Z. The otential for 11quefacthn-related ground movement on the stte
should be mitigated by the placement of engineered fill within low
lying areas during stte grading.
3, The potentta~ for lurching and lateral spreads tn arias adjacent to
$anta 6ertrudts Creek should be mitigated by channelizatton of the
stream and use of standard building setbacks.
The exploratory trench beckfill should be considered durtng future slte
development. The trench locations ~tre determined by the project
engineer,
It tS our e tnlon that the report was prepared tn I cam etent manner and
sorts hs ~t requtremnts of the Alqutst-Prtolo Speclo~ Studies Zone ~ct, the
,,so:T,t,d Rherstde County 0rd. 547, End the additional 1rifemitten requested
under the California Environmental Ovaltry Act roytee. FInal approval of the
report ta hereby ghen.
Me recomMnd that the following note be placed on the Hnal lap prior to
recordorion:
Schaefer DIxon Associates
- 3 - July 26° t988
"COunty 6eolo tc Report No. 5Z6 wls prepared for this property on Juqy 12,
198~ by Schaeler DIxon Assoctltes, Ind ts on ftle at the Rhers~de County
Planntng Department. The spectftc 1tams of concern Irl lnacthe faults,
liquefaction, lattra~ spresds, and unco~pacted trinch b/ckft11.
Vary truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING OEPARTHENT
r~~$~~ - Plmnn g Otrlctor
$AK:rd
Bedford Properties - Appltcsnt
Earl Hart -'CDffiG
Roy $hlemon'& As$oc.
Norm Losthem - lutld~ng i Safety (2)
Oohn Ch~u - Tlam ~
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA DATE:
Attn: Scott WriGht
ironmental Health Smeczallst IV
PLOT PLAN NO. 126
10-09-90
The Environmental Health Services has revzewed Plot Plan No.
126 .and has no objections. Prior to any buildinQ plan
approval, the followlnq xtems are required:
"Will-serve" letters from water and sewerlnq
aqencles.
If there are to be any food establishments. three
complete sets of mlans for each food establlshment
will be submltted include a fixture schedule. a
finzsh schedule and a Dlumbln~ schedule in order to
ensure compliance wlth the California Unzform
Retail Food Fac~lxties Law.
SM:dr
RrC~-IV~n
~- .-. ,.- -~ C C f 11
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374 , (714) 798-8570 · 422-1610
October 8, 1990
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL SERVIC!~S AGENCY
DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER
Director
Scott Wright, Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
re: PLOT PLAN NO. 126, ARCHITECTS COMBS, MESQUITA, INC.
The project is located on the very fossilfferous Unnamed Sandstone. Excavation associated with
development will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. This program should include: (1)
monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered
specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3) euration of specimens
into an established repository; and (4) a report of f'mdings with complete specimen inventory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Allan D. Oriesemer
Museums Director
ADG:RERAr
November ~9, 1990
3760 liTlt ~TREET
17~} 275-~.777
TO: Cl'I~ OF TEMECt~A
A*'ETN: PLANNING DEPARC~,ENT
PLOT PI,~N 126
With respso~ CO =he tendinlets of approval regarding the above referenced plo:
plan, the Firs Depar~nent recozmanda the followinS fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized
fire protection standards:
The ~ire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the roods1
or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure astabZished
in Ordinance
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of dallyerieS 2000 GPH
~or a 2 hour duration at 20 ~81 residual opera:in~ prsseure~ ~h~ch mua~ be
available before any :~bustible material is ~lace~ on the Job sire.
A combination oi on-sl~e end off-site super fire hydrants
will be l~ated not lest than 25 feet or more than 155 feat irma any
~ortion of the builain~ as meaaute~ al~nf approved vehlculaT =ravelways.
The re,sired fire flow shall be evaliable from an~ adjacent h~dran:(s)
in the system,
The required fire flow may be adlustad at a late= point in the pernit
or build-in ~ire pro~ection mealurea.
A~plioan=/developer shell furnish one napy of the ~atar s~stsm plane Co
the ~ire Department ~o= review. Plane shall ~enfo~m ~n ~hs f~Ta hydTan~
types. lo~ation &n~ spau~n8, end. the system shall ~eet ~e fits f~ow
requ:Lrements. Plane shall be e£$ned/&pp=oved by a re~ta~ared ~ivil eni~neer
pree~=~bed b7 =he Rivlrs~de County ~=e Department."
Install a somp1eta firs sprinkler aye=am in al~ bulldin~e ~aquiring
f~re flow of l~OO ~ or ~re&=er. The poet lnd~nato= valve and {ira
department aonna~tton shell be located to the fronts ~ithin 50 feat
a hydrants end · m~n~um o~ 25 feat ~r~m ~he build~.n$(s). A etaCement:
~hat the bu~ldLn$(s) v~11 be auc~acioall? f~ra epr~nklers~ mue= ha
innlude~ on the t~le pale Of ~he buildInS plane.
~0'd NOlSI~ia e~IINN~d '~ai~ AINRO3 '~8:60
submit:ed to the Fire Department for approval prior to lustdilation, as
required by the Uni£orm Building Code.
lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(e) mus~ he area eeparate~
into square ~ooC compartmsncs~ app~oved by th~ Fire Department, es per
~ecnl~n 505 (e) Qf the Unlform Building Code.
9. A etacement char the buildleg will be automatically ~ire spriW~!ered
=use appear on Che c~tle pegs of the ~uildinS plane.
Zns~a11 panic hardware and exit siens as per Chaptar 33 of the Uniform
Building Code. Low-level Exit glens, ~heTe exit siins are ~equire~
by gention 3314 (a).
11, Certain designated areas will be required ~o be maintained es fire lanes.
12. Install ~ortable f~re sx=ingu~shers with a minimum rating of 2A-18BC.
Contact & oertif~ed ezt~n&uisher compan~ for proper placement of equipment.
Prlur ~o ~ssuancs of buildinS permits, ~hs applicant/developer shall
~s Teepossible co sutmi=· check oT mone7 order in the amount of $558.00
~ ~e City of Tsmenula for plan check fees.
P:ior ~o she ~ssuance of building permits, the devslOper shall deposit
vith =ha City nf Tsmecu!ao a check or money order equa/in~
This a~ounC must he submitted separately from ~he plan check review fee.
15. Final nomal~ioua
Buil~lm~ and Safa~
All ~uesei~ns relszdimg :he meaning of conditions shall he referred Co Cha
~lamulne and Eneineering s~af~.
RAYMONDH. RRGXS
Chief Fire ~spartmen~ Flannel
Laura Cabtel, Firs 8a~eey ipeeislia~
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 126 TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY BANK AND A
TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE
EASTERLY SIDE OF JEFFERSON AVENUE ABUTTING THE
NORTHERLY SIDE OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK.
WHEREAS, Bank of Commerce filed Plot Plan No. 126 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula PlanningCommisslon hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP126 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
al
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 126 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
d)
The proposed bank and office buildings will
be consistent with the Area Plan land use
designation and the zone in which they will be
located.
STAFFRPT\PP126 2
project will
Declaration,
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
proposed land use will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
f)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
g)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
h)
The project will not constitute an adverse
impact on surrounding land uses in that
runoff from the site will not drain toward
adjacent properties and the project is of
similar use to surrounding development.
i)
The site is adequate for the proposed use in
that parking, internal traffic circulation, and
landscaping are adequate and meet all
applicable requirements.
j)
The site has adequate access from a public
street, Jefferson Avenue.
k)
The site is free from ordinary storm flood
hazards, and the potential for liquefaction
can be adequately mitigated.
D. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no Plot Plan may be
approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Plot Plan approved shall be subject to such conditions
as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare
of the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed
not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative
therefore, is hereby granted.
STAFFRPT\PP126 3
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 126 for the operation and construction of a bank and an office building
located at the northeasterly corner of Jefferson Avenue and Santa Gertrudis Creek
subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLA NN I NG COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP126 4
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 126.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP126 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Architects Coorobs, Mesquita, Inc.
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
6595 Riverdale Street
San Dieqo, CA 92120
(619) 584-8448
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 2, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 126
Location of Proposal:
Easterly side of Jefferson Avenue
abutting northerly side of
Santa Gertrudis Creek
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP126 I
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP126 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants}?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe N__o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP126 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
in volve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP126 4
Yes Maybe No
b, Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? __ __ X
c, Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e, Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ __ X
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP126 5
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP126 6
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP126 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.a-d.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
3.c,i.
No. The project will not cause unstable earth conditions, soil
disruptions, destruction of unique features, or substantial change of
topography in that the site and its surroundings are relatively flat and
have already been rough graded and compacted.
Maybe. Water runoff will increase due to the addition of impermeable
surfaces. Drainage facilities as approved by the City Engineering
Department will prevent soil erosion impacts on adjacent properties.
No. The project will not result in changes in siltation or erosion or
modification of the adjacent creek channel in that the Santa Gertrudis
Creek is a fully improved flood control channel where it abuts the site.
No. The project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards.
The cJeotechnical investigation prepared in conjunction with the site's
underlying parcel map concluded that the potential for liquefaction is
low and that faults encountered on the western side of the parcel map
site are considered inactive in accordance with the criteria of the State
Division of Mines and Geolocjy. No setback zone for human occupancy
structures was recommended. The County Geologist reviewed the
report and found that it meets the requirements of the Alquist Priolo
Act.
No. The project will not result in substantial air emissions,
objectionable odors, or climatic changes.
No. The project will not impact any streams or bodies of water.
Yes. The project will result in changes in absorption and runoff rates
due to the addition of impermeable surfaces. The runoff will be
accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the City
Engineering Department and will not constitute a significant impact.
No. The project will not alter the course or flow of flood waters. The
Santa Gertrudis Creek is an improved flood control channel where it
abuts the site. The entire site of the underlying parcel map has been
raised more than one foot above the flood level as approved by the
County Flood Control District.
STAFFRPT\PP126 8
Maybe. During construction, the project could increase turbidity in
local surface water. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant.
3.f.
No. The proposed project will not alter the flow of ground water.
3.g,h.
No. The project will not involve direct additions, withdrawals, or
interception of the aquifer, nor will it significantly affect the public
water supply.
Plant Life
No. The site has already been cleared of vegetation and graded in
conjunction with the underlying parcel map. The project will not cause
any additional impacts to plant life.
Animal Life
5.8-C.
No. The site has already been cleared of vegetation and graded in
conjunction with the underlying parcel map. The project will not cause
any additional impacts to fauna. The project will be subject to
Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees.
Noise
6°8.
Yes. The project will increase on-site noise levels temporarily during
construction. The temporary increase in noise levels is not considered
a significant impact.
6.b.
No. The proposed use and probable future land uses in the vicinity will
not be of the type that will generate severe noise levels.
Li.qht and Glare
No. The proposal will not generate substantial new light or glare. The
use of low pressure sodium vapor lights to minimize skyglow
interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope will be a Condition of
Approval.
Land Use
No. The proposed use is in conformance with the existing zoning of the
site.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposed project will not increase the consumption rate of any
non-renewable natural resource.
STAFFRPT\PP126 9
Risk of Upset
10.8.
No. The proposed office buildings will not involve the use of any
hazardous materials other than typical cleaning agents. This is not
regarding as a significant impact.
10.b.
Maybe. If construction involves closure of any lanes on Jefferson
Avenue, the street or lane closure shah be coordinated with the Police
and Fire Departments.
Population
11.
Maybe. The project will provide fewer than 100 new jobs, some of which
may be taken by local residents. This is not considered a significant
impact on population distribution.
Housinq
12.
Maybe. The project will create additional jobs which may increase the
demand for housing. This is not considered a significant impact based
on the relatively small number of new jobs and the possibility that some
jobs may be taken by those who are already residents.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,f.
No. The project is consistent with the zoning of the site and its
vicinity and will not generate an undue burden on the streets in the
area or cause an increase in traffic hazards. The project will be subject
to traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees.
13.b.
No. The project will be required to provide adequate on-site parking.
13.c,d,e.
No. The project is not of sufficient size to significantly impact existing
transportation systems or to cause alterations in circulation patterns or
transportation systems.
Public Services
lu,.a,b,
e.f.
Yes. The project will require public service in the areas of police, fire,
road maintenance, and public facilities. These impacts are not
considered significant and will be mitigated by impact fees and property
taxes.
lu,.c,d.
Maybe. Any population increase due to additional employment
opportunities would impact schools and recreational facilities. These
impacts are unlikely to be significant and will be mitigated by
Conditions of Approval upon new residential development.
STAFFRPT\PP126 10
Enerqy
15.a,b.
No. The project will not result in substantial use of fuel or an increase
in the demand for energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The project will not require substantial additions or alterations to
existing utilities.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The proposed buildings will be constructed in accordance with the
Uniform Building and Fire Codes and will not result in exposure of
human beings to potential health hazards.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The project will not obstruct any scenic view that is currently
available to the public. Landscaping of the site and the architecture of
the building will be adequate to prevent visually offensive appearance.
Recreation
19.
No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No. The site is not in an area of archaeological sensitivity,
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. The site has already been disturbed by grading done in
conjunction with the underlying parcel map. The project will be subject
to mitigation fees for the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan.
21 .b,c.
No. The project will not result in any significant long term or
cumulative impacts in that the site and adjacent properties have been
raised more than one foot above the flood level as approved by the
County Flood District.
21 .d.
No. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings in that potential flood hazards have been mitigated as approved
by the County Flood Control District, traffic signal mitigation fees will
be required, and construction must conform to Uniform Building and
Fire Code requirements.
STAFFRPT\PP126 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP126 12
;//
VICINITY MAP ,,,
i!
.|
COOMBS -~'~..SQIdITA, INC.
I
ITEM #12
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Parcel Map No. 25687
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: 1. Adopt the Resolution approving
Parcel Map No. 25687
2. Approve Parcel Map No. 25687
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Jonan Management Services
Loren Phillips and Associates
To convert an existing commercial structure to a two
unit condominium for ownership purposes.
28~,50 Felix Valdez Avenue
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial )
South: R-3 (General Residential)
East: R-R ( Rural Residential )
West: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service
Commercial |
29,76~, square foot commercial building
North: Commercial
South: Apartments
East: Murrieta Creek
West: Commercial
No. of Acres:
Building Area:
No. of Condominium Units:
1.5 acres
29,764 sq. ft.
2 units
The project is to convert an existing two story
commercial structure to a two unit condomlnlum on
one lot for ownership purposes.
STAFFRPT\PM25687 1
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Requirements of Subdivision Map Act
Condominium projects are defined as subdivisions
by the State Subdivision Map Act. A tentative and
final parcel map is required in order to create two
condominium units. The design and location of the
buildings and the manner in which the buildings or
airspace are to be divided are not a part of the map
review process for condominium projects.
Requirements of Ordinance q60
Ordinance 460 requires that all land divisions
conform to the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCF, R's)
providing for reciprocal parking and access and for
maintenance of the common area shall be required as
a Condition of Approval.
Easement
The ingress and egress easement is obsolete and will
be removed from the property description.
The proposed condominium conversion is for
ownership purposes and will not affect the land use.
The existing furnishing businesses are consistent
with the Manufacturing - Service Commercial zoning
and the commercial land use designation of the site.
Land divisions creating four or fewer parcels are
categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA
per Section 15315 (Class 15).
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26587
The proposed Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment and is categorically exempt from
the requirements of CEQA.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The project
STAFF R PT\PM25687 2
10.
conforms to the SWAP guidelines and to the
current zoning for the site.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted Ceneral Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The proposed condominium conversion is not
likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidable injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
All units have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedication rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
The proposed condominium conversion is not
in conflict with easements for access through
or use of the property within the proposed
project.
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFR PT\PM25687 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 90-
Map No. 25687; and,
approving Parcel
APPROVE Parcel Map No. 25687 based on the
analysis and findings contained herein and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
SW: ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PM25687 4
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25687
TO CONVERT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATED AT 28450 FELIX VALDEZ AVENUE TO A TWO
UNIT CONDOMINIUM.
WHEREAS, Loren Phillips and Associates filed Parcel Map No. 25687 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PM25687 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (herelnafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
fol Iowi ng:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25687 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
d)
The proposed Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment and is categorically exempt from
the requirements of CEO A.
STAFFRPT~ PM25687 2
e)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The project
conforms to the SWAP guidelines and to the
current zoning for the site.
f)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
g)
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the current zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E.
h)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
i)
The proposed condominium conversion is not
likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidable injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
j)
All units have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedication rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
k)
The proposed condominium conversion is not
in conflict with easements for access through
or use of the property within the proposed
project.
I)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
m)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed Parcel Map is
categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per Section 15315 (Class 15).
STAFFRPT\PM25687 3
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. Z5687 for the conversion of an existing commercial building to a Z-unit
condominium located at 28450 Felix Valdez Avenue subject to the followin9 conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the day of , 1990 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PM25687 4
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 25687.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PM25687 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Parcel Map No: 25687
Project Description: To Convert an
Existinq Buildinq to a 2 Unit Condominium
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-280-008, 012
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration
date is
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance L~60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Parcel Map
No. 25687. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
STAFFRPT\PM25687 1
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineerin9
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~,60.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
9. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
10. Felix Valdez shall be dedicated to 33~ from centerline on the final map.
11.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R~s shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CC~,R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CC~,R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCF, R~s shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense.
The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
STAFFRPT\PM25687 2
The CCF, R~s and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facil ities.
The CC&R~s shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCF, RIs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCF, RIs, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the ownerIs sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCF, R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
STAFFRPT\PM25687 3
ADIVIINI S iRA r#ON
81DG
·
I
I
I
CC I
IE~,LIFORNIA
rEIIECULA PARK I
IPROP~ I
I
I
_~__~,, *l*emecula ~,.,
I
,iDa I
I ¢
StTE I
I
-+-
I
I
.-,~
c~CAL~:: NONI~
t
Z
hi
I'
ITEM #13
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038
Plot Plan No. 76
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 90- approving
Plot Plan No. 76 and Parcel Map No. 2~,038
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Leland/Sung Development
Markham F, Associates
Subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels, construct a 92
unit motel, and convert an existing structure into a
restaurant.
Southerly side of Moreno Road, adjacent to Motel 6.
C-P-S
North:
South:
East:
West:
( Scenic Highway Commercial )
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
R-3 ( General Residential ) Park
1-15 Freeway
R-3 ( General Residential )
N/A
Parcel I - Motel 6
Parcel 2 - Vacant
Parcel 3 - Vacant Structure
North: Motel
South: Vacant/Fire Station
East: Freeway
West: Park
STAFFRPT\PP76 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
No. of Acres: 4.99
Square Feet of
Proposed Motel: 16,000 sq. ft.
Proposed Restaurant: 4,300 sq.ft.
No. of Proposed
Parcels: 3
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 was initially
reviewed by the City Council as a receive and file
item in May of 1990. At that time, Staff raised
concerns relative to parcel size and configuration
where no plan of development existed. At the
public hearing meeting for which the proposed map
was subsequently scheduled, the applicant
requested that the tentative parcel map be
continued off calendar. This would be until such
time as a Plot Plan application could be considered
concurrently with the proposed parcel map.
On June 21, 1990, Plot Plan 76 was submitted to the
City of Temecula. Plot Plan No. 76 is an application
for a 92 unit motel and an adjacent restaurant
facility. After Plot Plan No. 76 was submitted, it
began to be reviewed with Tentative Parcel Map No.
2~,038. The two projects were reviewed by the
Preliminary Development Review Committee on-
August 2, 1990. Revisions and corrections were
resubmitted and the project was reviewed and
conditioned at the Formal Development Review
Committee on November 8, 1990.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038 is an application to
subdivide a ~,.99 acre parcel into three (3)
commercial lots. A Motel 6 currently exists on
proposed Parcel No. 1. The remaining two (2)
parcels will be considered for separate uses under
Plot Plan No. 76.
Plot Plan No. 76 is an application for a 92 room Days
Inn Motel, and an adjacent restaurant use. Parcel
No. 3 contains an existing structure which will
eventually be converted to the restaurant.
The project is located at the southerly leg of Moreno
Road, on the south side of the street. Adjacent to
and east of the project site is the Motel 6 and
Interstate 15 Freeway. South and west of the
project are Sam Hicks Monument Park and a fire
station.
STAFFRPT\PP76 2
PLOT PLAN
The proposed plot plan is for a 15,972 square foot,
92 unit motel structure and an adjacent ~,, 300 square
foot restaurant use. The proposed motel is fronting
Moreno Road. The proposed restaurant use is
behind (south) the motel and northerly of 6th
Street. The restaurant will have no direct street
frontage. No elevations are proposed for the
restaurant at this time. The restaurant use is
conditioned to return to the Planning Commission
for approval of the elevations when they are
proposed.
Adjacent to the proposed Days Inn Motel is an
existing Motel 6. The Motel 6 was approved and
constructed under the auspices of Riverside County
Planning Department.
Parkinq and Circulation
Under Ordinance 3L~8, the parking requirement for
a motel is one space per room, plus two (2) spaces
for a resident manager. Under this requirement,
the motel would be required to provide 9/4 parking
spaces. The proposed project is providing 9~
spaces which includes the three (3) handicap spaces
required by the code.
The proposed restaurant use is providing 58
parking spaces. Nine (9) bicycle rack spaces are
being provided in lieu of three (3) auto spaces.
This is allowed by the code under Section
18.12.7(e). The maximum serving area for the
proposed restaurant use would be approximately
2,u,00 square feet. The floor plan for the restaurant
will be reviewed by the Planning Commission with
the elevations when proposed.
Access for the proposed project site will be taken
from Moreno Road and from 6th Street. A 25 foot
wide easement exists from 6th Street to proposed
Parcel No. 3. The two access points and parking lot
circulation will serve both projects. Reciprocal
parking and access will be recorded under the
CCBR~s which are conditions of the project.
STAFFRPT\PP76 3
The Engineering Department has conditioned this
project to pay traffic mitigation fees for impacts to
Rancho California Road and Front Street. The
traffic report for the project was accepted by the
Traffic Engineering Department.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping and shading plans exceed
the requirements of Ordinance 3~,8. A substantial
number of trees are proposed for the site. The
trees will be a minimum of 15 gallon in size. The
landscaping adjacent to the freeway will be required
to have a substantial number of 2~," box trees.
Architecture/Materials
The proposed motel exterior will consist of three (3)
similar stucco colors; cream, beige, and tan.
Wrought iron and accent trim will be painted a mint
green. The roof will consist of mission style tan
concrete tile.
The proposed motel will be three (3) stories high for
a total of L~8'6". The maximum allowed height is 50
feet. The architecture is reminiscent of mission
style with broken roof lines, varying wall
projections and offset floor levels {front
elevations). The project also incorporates arches,
trellis and log {timber) projections. A large port
cochere extends across the driveway at the Moreno
Road access point. The port cochere lends to the
visual appeal of the project view from the public
right-of-way by increasing the horizontal
orientation of the structure.
The external air conditioning units for the project
will be screened by wrought iron mesh on the upper
floors, arch projections on the middle floors, and
landscaping on the lower floors.
Project visibility from the freeway will be minimal
from the southbound lanes. The only portions
which may be visible are some tower elements and
portions of the top floor. Motel 6 is between this
project and the freeway. The project will have no
visibility from the northbound lanes of 1-15.
STAFFR PT\PP76 ~,
Currently, there are no proposed elevations for the
restaurant use. Such elevations and plans, when
proposed will require additional Planning
Commission approval.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
The tentative parcel map is an application to
subdivide 4.99 acres into three (3) parcels. Parcel
No. 1 will contain 2.73 net acres, Parcel No. 2 will
contain 1.53 net acres, Parcel No. 3 will contain . 73
acres. Parcel No. 1 is the site of the existing Motel
6. Parcel No. 2 is the site of the proposed Days
Inn, with Parcel No. 3 being the site of the
proposed restaurant use. There are no minimum
parcel sizes in the C-P-S zone.
Adequate access exists for all three (3) parcels in
question. Access to Parcel No. 3 exists under a
recorded easement from 6th Street. Reciprocal
access agreements between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 will
also be recorded under the project CC~,R's.
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Zoninq Consistency
The proposed site is currently zoned C-P-S (Scenic
Highway Commercial ). This zoning permits both of
the proposed uses provided a plot plan is approved
by the Planning Commission. South and east of the
pro!ect lies some existing R-3 (General Residential )
zonsng. However, the property to the south
supports an existing dedicated park and fire
station. The vacant R-3 zoning to the east is not
likely to support residential development because of
the expanding nature of the commercial development
to the south and west. North of the project is 1-15
and west of the project is C-1/C-P {General
Commercial) zoning.
The proposed motel and restaurant uses are
compatible with the existing C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial) zoning.
Southwest Area Plan Consistency
The project site as identified by the SWAP, is
commercial. All of the adjacent uses are also
commercial, except to the east which is freeway.
STAFFRPT\PP76 5
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Sufficient infrastructure exists in the immediate
vicinity to serve the proposed project.
The project and tentative parcel map, as proposed,
are in conformance with the Southwest Area Plan.
Several areas of potential impact were identified in
the Initial Study, including but not limited to, soil
disruption, possible geologic hazards, drainage,
flooding, endangered species, traffic, and public
Services.
Soil disruption, geologic hazards, and drainage has
been mitigated through the grading plan which was
accepted by the Engineering Department. The
proposed project site is not within a flood zone,
however, it is in a fee area. The fees will be paid to
County Flood Control for the future improvements
within the drainage basin.
Impacts to endangered species (Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat), traffic, and public services will be mitigated
through the payment of fees as identified in the
Conditions of Approval and Initial Study.
All potential impacts have been mitigated to a level
of non-significance. A negative declaration is
recommended for adoption.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code.
There is no minimum lot size in the
commercial zone, and the area is
identified by SWAP as commercial.
2. The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the City's Planning and
Engineering Departments.
A. The lot design facilitates parking,
access, and site design.
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
STAFFRPT\PP76 6
A. Conditions of Approval require
dedication prior to final map
recordation.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
An Initial Study was prepared
including mitigation which will alleviate
all impacts.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report.
The surrounding area currently
supports commercial projects, and is
identified by SWAP as commercial.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
If the proposed use is inconsistent, it
will not be detrimental because of the
commercial nature of surrounding
uses,
The project as proposed provides adequate
provisions for future passive or natural solar
heating or cooling opportunities.
All three (3) proposed parcels include
sufficient southern exposure.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
This Staff Report contains mapping,
Conditions of Approval, and an Initial
Study which support the Staff
recommendation.
STAFFRPT\PP76 7
Plot Plan No. 76
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 76 will be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
Plot Plan No. 76 is a commercial
project. The proposed site is
designated as commercial by SWAP.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
If the proposed use is inconsistent, it
will not be detrimental because of the
commercial nature of surrounding
USeS ,
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The proposed use complies with local
planning and zoning laws which are
prepared in conformance with State
planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
The proposed site plan and tentative
parcel map are in conformance with
Ordinance 3~,8.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare,
Potential impacts are mitigated to a
level of non-significance under the
Initial Study and Conditions of
Approval.
STAFFRPT\PP76 8
10.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
The harmony in scale, bulk, height,
intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, through
appropriate building mass reduction
techniques and landscape installation,
and distance from planned adjacent
structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
A. The project conforms to existing
zoning and SWAP designations.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
A. The project will take access from
Moreno Road and 6th Street.
The design of the project, the type of
improvements, and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
The project has a 28 foot wide drive
aisle from Marino Drive to 6th Street.
CC~,R's will be recorded which will
ensure access.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
This Staff Report contains mapping,
Conditions of Approval, and an Initial
Study which support the Staff
recommendation.
STAFFRPT\PP76 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038, and
Plot Plan No. 76;
ADOPT Resolution 90- approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 based
on the analysis and findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval; and,
ADOPT Resolution 90- approving
Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
Resolution 90- Approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038
Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038
Resolution 90- Approving
Plot Plan No. 76
Conditions of Approval for
Plot Plan No. 76
Initial Study
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\PP76 10
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVI NG PARCEL MAP NO. 24038
TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.99 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS
AT THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF MORENO ROAD.
WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Parcel Map No. 2q038 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on
December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
approval of said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin,qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{ 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP76 1
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of.
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 2~,038 proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
dl
The proposed division is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code.
STAFFRPT\PP76 2
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
There is no minimum lot size in the
commercial zone, and the area is
identified by SWAP as commercial.
The lot design is logical and meets the
approval of the City's Planning and
Engineering Departments.
A. The lot design facilitates parking,
access, and site design.
The legal owner of record has offered to make
all dedications required.
Conditions of Approval require
dedication prior to final map
recordation.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all
impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval.
An Initial Study was prepared
including mitigation which will alleviate
all impacts.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis
contained in the Staff Report.
The surrounding area currently
supports commercial projects, and is
identified by SWAP as commercial.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
If the proposed use is inconsistent, it
will not be detrimental because of the
commercial nature of surrounding
uses.
The project as proposed provides adequate
provisions for future passive or natural solar
heating or cooling opportunities.
STAFFRPT\PP76 3
All three (3) proposed parcels include
sufficient southern exposure.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
This Staff Report contains mapping,
Conditions of Approval, and an Initial
Study which support the Staff
recommendation.
D. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Parcel Map may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and
further, that any Parcel Map approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map
proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 24038 for the subdivision of a 4.99 acre parcel into 3 parcels located at
Moreno Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\PP76 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Parcel Map No. 2~,038.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFR PT\PP76 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No:
24038
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
u,60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer
and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~,60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PP76 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following agencies shall provide
written verification to the Engineering Department that all pertinent
Conditions of approval and applicable regulations have been met:
Planning Department
Temecula Valley School District
Fire District
Engineer Department
County Health Department
Water District
Flood Control District
Easter Municipal Water District.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical
height of thirty ( 30 ) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall
be a minimum of one-half the slope height.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three {3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the
City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits,
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Departmentis transmittal dated September 25,
1989, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Flood Control Districtis letter dated November 1~), 1989,
a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control
drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division
Ordinance ~,60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities
shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Grading Permits.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated November 29, 1989, a copy of
which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
STAFFRPT\PP76 2
16.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 6, 1988, a copy of which is
attached.
17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
18.
19.
20.
21.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the C-P-S ( Scenic Highway Commercial ) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
(ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount PaiDmar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, PaiDmar Observatory recommendation.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
STAFFRPT\PP76 3
22.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All
lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with
gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading
plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or
retained,
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
STAFFRPT\PP76 4
23.
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
gradin9 activity to allow recovery of fossils.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, oi* employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concernin9 Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2q038, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66~,99. :37. The City of Temecu la will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceedin9 or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineerin9 Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly sl~ows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
25.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
26.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. LI60.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
27. The developer shall receive written clearance from the followin9 agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
STAFFRPT\PP76 5
28.
29.
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
CalTrans
Moreno Road shall be dedicated to 44' from centerline on the final map.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Plannin9, City
Engineer and City Attorney. 'The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties havin9 any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CC&R's shall be subject to the followin9 conditions:
a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CC~,R's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCBR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCBR's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCSR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further
subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or
numbered lots.
ii.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by an association or other means acceptable to the
City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the
STAFFRPT\PP76 6
Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building
permits.
iii.
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements
ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads,
drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCBR's or by deeds
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the
issuance of building permit where no map is involved.
30.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
31. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\PP76 7
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT
September 20. 1909
of HEALTH
II
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4000 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
ATTN: Jeff Adams
jAN 2 3 1990
RIVER61DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
IANNINO
3055 RAMSEY STREET
BANNIN~CI~ CA 92220
263 NOh,H BROADWAY
BLYTHE, CA 92225
7240 MARGUERITA
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
CORONA
505 SOUTH BUENA VISTA
CORONA, CA 91720
880 NORTH STATE ST.
46-209 OASIS STREET
INDIO, CA 92201
pMRRll
23? NORTH 'O' STREET
pERRIS, CA 92370
NUBIDOUX
5888 MISSION BLVD,
RIVERSIDE, CA 92509
RE: PARCEL MAP 24038: See attached legal description.
(3 Lot)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative MaD
No. 24038 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as amproved bV the water
company and the Health Department, Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale
not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alonq with
the oriqinal drawing to the County Surveyor.
The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and
3oint specifications,:~and the size of the main
at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in all
respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 10, and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California, when applicable.
Reply to:
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
ATTN: Mike McCabe
September 25, 1989
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system in Parcel
Map 24038 is accordance with the water system expansion
plans of the Rancho California Water District
and that the water service, storage and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to
such parcel map. This certification does not constitute
a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel
map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for
fire protection or any other purpose".This
certification shall be signed by a responsible official
of the water company. Ib~_~!~n~_~_~_~i~_~
This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water
District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every
lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory
financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made
prior to the recordation of the final map.
ta
This Department has a s foment from the Eastern Municipal
Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of the Di"strict. The
sewer' system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Mealth Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles.
~i~f~i~ C~UM~ Planning
PaGe Three
ATTN: Mike McCabe
September 25, 1989
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 24038 is
in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticiDated
wastes from the proposed parcel
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be
completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
~ti~z~nmental Health SpecialiSt
Environmental Health Services
~V
SM:tac
Attachment
KENNETH L, EDWARDS
CHIEF ENGINEER
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO. {714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Re://4
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the/~/Jrr,~~Z~e~wx~L~//~ //~>P. Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordan ith the ap~l~rcable rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of . The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
JOHN H. ICASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
CALTRANS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORM
(YOur Reference) Date
Plan checker (Co Rte PM)
WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
~/'~ Constructicm/Denolition within present or proposed State right of ~ay should be investigated for
potential h~rdous ~este (asbestos, petroche~cals, etc.) end mitigated en per requirements of
regulatory agencies.
[,/-' ~ plans a~e su~nitted, pleese conform to the requirerents of the attach~ '~ndout". This will
expedite the review process end time required for Plan Caeck.
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appeer to have a significant effect
on the state highly system, consideration must be given to the c~nulative effect of c~ntinued develc~a~t
in this arm. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cLmulative im~ct of traffic and drainage shall be
provided prior to or with development of the aree that ne~itates then.
It appeers that the traffic end drainage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on
the state high~ey system of the ares. Any ~ures necessary to mitigate the traffic and drainage
impects sbal] be included with d~ development.
This portion of state highway is included in the Califon~ia Nsster Plan of State [[igh~eys Fligible
for Official Scenic [~gh~ay Designation, end in the future your agency mmy wish to have tj~is route
officially designated as a state scefLlc hi~n~ey.
__ This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic highly, end develo~nent
in tkis corridor should be ce~etible with the scenic highway concept.
__ It is recognized dmt there is cemiderable public concern about noise levels adjacest to heevily
traveled high~eys. Land developrent, in order to be competible with this cer. ern, my require sperial
noise attenuation m~lres. Development of property should include eny nec~ry noise attenuation.
WE REQUEST TIIAT THE ITFj'[S CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT:
Normal right of way dedication to provide
half-width on the state highway.
Normal street improvements to provide __
half-width on the state highway.
Curb and gutter, State Standard __
along the state highway.
Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs.
__ radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway.
A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns.
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
/Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be-provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by__
driveways.
standard
__ Vehicular access shall not be provided within of the intersection at
__ Vehic,,]ar access to the state hi~ay sl~l l be provided by a ro~d-type connection.
__ Vehicular access connections shall be paved at leest within the state ,hio~lbay right of ~y.
Access points to the state highway sj~311 be developed in a manner that ~411 provide sight distance
for __ nTph along the state
/landscaping along the state higm~y shall be low and forgiving in nature.
A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening, shall be provided on the state
at
Consideration shall be giv~ to the pro~vision, or future provision, of signalization and lighting
of the intersection of p4/~r~/7 C~//;z~/-/-~, ~)~/ ~-ai tJ~e state
A traffic s~udy indicating on- and off-site flow ~tter~s and vo!~mes, probable ~:~pects, and proposed
mitigation ~,~res Sj~Lll be prepared.
Adequate off-street par , which does not require becking onto the state hio~may, shall be provided.
__ king .
Parlag lot shall be developed in a n~3nner that will not. cause any vejticn]ar movement conf]4cts,
includ4.ng parking stall entrance an~ exit, witJ~in of th~ entrance from the state Eighty.
Handicap parking ~nll not be developed in the busy driveway entrance area.
Care shall be taken ~4xen developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing draLnage
pettern of the state high~ey. Partic,,]~ consideration should be given to cumllative increased storm
runoff to insure that a ki~jm~y drainage problen is not creeted.
/Any necessary noise attenuation roball be provided as pert of me develo~nent of this property.
refer to attacne~ adaitional co~p_nts.
REQUEST:
copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval.
copy of any dnotments providing additional state hi~J~ey ri.~ht of ~ay upon recordatian of the nmp.
WE REQUEST TiiE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
Any proposals to further develop this property.
A copy of ~ traffic or envirormental study.
A check print of the P-~cel or Tract
A check print of the Plans for any improverents wi~ the state hioj~ay right of ~y.
A deck print of t/~ Grading and Drainage Plans for ~his property ~A~an av~]able.
STATE OF CAUFC)RNIA--*BUSINESS, TRAN,~z~RTATIC)N AND HCXJSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN ~ERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
August 1, 1990
RECEIVED AUG- 9 1990
08-Riv-15-4.980
Your Reference:
PP 76 ~
Planning Department
City of Temecula
City Hall
43172Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan
No. 76 located at Moreno Road and west of Front Street.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted
under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud
of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384.
District Development
Review Engineer
Att .
HANDOUT
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
(Revised October 1, 1989)
INTRODUCTION
This "HANDOUT" is intended to provide the permittee and/or the
permittee's representative(s) with a few basic guidelines for
the design of typical roadway improvements and grading
proposals within the State highway right of way. IT DOES NOT
CONTAIN ALL THE DESIGN CRITERIA that may be used in ~he review
of a specific project NOR DOES IT CONTAIN ANY TREATMENT FOR
UNUSUAL SITUATIONS which call for special consideration.
Additional information and design standards may be found in
the latest editions of the following publications:
ASHTO (Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets)
Obtainable from:
American Accociation of State
Highway and Transportation
444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 225
Washington, D.C. 20001
Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans Standard Plans
Caltrans Standard Specifications
These publications may be obtained from:
Department of General Services
Publications Distribution
P. O. Box 1025
North Highlands, CA 95660
(916) 973-3700
IT SHOULD BE NOTED: The developerMUST OBTAIN ANENCROACHMENT
PERMIT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK from:
Department of Transportation
Permit Section
247 West Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(Caltrans)
HANDOUT
Page 2 of 11
II. STANDARDS
ALL WORK within the State highway right
STATE STANDARDS, the Title Sheet of the
a General Note with such statement.
of way SHALL BE TO
Plans shall include
III. GENERAL SUBMITTALS REOUIRED
General Note Statements, Street Improvement Plans, Grading
Plans, Striping & Signing Plans, Landscape & Irrigation Plans,
Electrical Plans, and Signal Plans shall include sufficient
pertinent details to provide the contractor and the State's
representative with adequate information of the proposed
project.
A. TITLE SHEET
The Title Sheet or Cover Sheet shall have a Vicinity Map
with the project site indicated, General and/or
Construction Notes, Legend, Quantities, and Index of the
sheets.
The vicinity Map MUST cover a minimum of two (2) miles
along the State route and at least one (1) major
intersection.
B. GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS
ALL OF THE FOLiOWING GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS SHALL BE
SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
An ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED before any work may
begin in or near the State right of way.
ALL WORK within the State right of way SMALL CONFORM to
the latest STATE STANDARD PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS or as
directed by the State's representative (Standards other
than State must be pre-appreved and justified).
NO EQUIPMENT or MATERIALS may be stored on the State
right of way.
ALL disturbed areas in the State right of way MUST BE
treated for erosion control (hydroseeding or equivalent,
or as directed by the State's representative). The
responsibility for maintaining erosion control WILL NOT
be released until the seeding is well established. The
CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for the COST OF CALTRANS
CLEANING ANY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES/CHANNELS which have
become cluttered with debris and/or silt as a result of,
or caused by, the construction project.
HANDOUT
Page 3 of 11
ACCESS CONTROL on the freeway WILL BE MAINTAINED at all
times, i.e., the work inside the State right of way MUST
BE FENCED OFF with no access to the work area from the
freeway.
NO FREEWAY RAMPS or FREEWAY LANES MAY BE CLOSED or
obstructed at ANYTIME unless specifically allowed per the
encroachment permit and/or as directed by the State's
representative.
ALL fence relocated to facilitate the construction of
this project inside the State right of way SHALL BE
REPLACED WITH CL-6 FENCE as shown in the State's Standard
Plans or with a block wall in accordance with acceptable
local agency standards.
Where Type CL-6 fence does not exist, the State right of
way fence MUST BE upgraded to TYPE CL-6 FENCE, as shown
in the Standard Plans.
The STRUCTURAL SECTION shown within the State right of
way is for ESTIMATING purposes ONLY. The actual section
WILL BE designed by a Soil Engineer after native soil
testing has been completed. A traffic index (TI) of
shall be used in the design of the travelled way,
and a TI of shall be used for the shoulder design.
The laboratory reports and the design calculations SHALL
BE SUBMITTED to the State's representative for APPROVAL
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION of the structural section.
ALL State drainage structures MUST first BE COMPLETELY
CLEANED of debris and/or silt by the contractor PRIOR to
making the connection.
The contractor SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that any
State drainage facility which is connected to or directly
affected by the contractors operation SHALL BE clean and
operational PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE of the permit work
by the State. Adequate clean-outs and access openings
SHALL BE PROVIDED in any construction within the State's
right of way for future maintenance and repair work as
needed. This work shall be furnished at NO COST TO the
STATE.
Where SURVEY MONUMENTS exist, such monuments SHALL BE
PROTECTED or shall be REFERENCED and RESET pursuant to
Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805
(Land Surveyor's Act).
HANDOUT
Page 4 of
ll
The pavement MUST BE saw-cut 2' minimum from the edge of
pavement. The saw-cutsMUST BE perpendicular or parallel
to the State highway centerline.
ALL signing, striping and pavement markings SHALL BE in
conformance with the current edition of the TRAFFIC
MANUAL, published by the State of California, Department
of Transportation, and the SPECIAL PROVISIONS. All
pavement markings SHALL BE thermoplastic unless otherwise
noted on the plans.
The exact location of ALL SIGNS shall be determined in
the field by the State's representative.
ALL conflicting striping and pavement markings NOT SHOWN
on the plans SHALL BE REMOVED from the pavement by
sandblasting by the contractor.
ALL conflicting signs SHALL BE either removed or
relocated by the contractor. Relocatable signs SHALL BE
installed as specified on the plans or as determined in
the field by the State's representative.
ALL signs, roadside markers, electroliers, etc., SHALL
BE PROTECTED and/or REPLACED in-kind according to the
current State Standard Plans and the current Traffic
Manual, at NO COST TO the STATE.
P~ANS
All Plans shall include and distinguish the existing and
proposed construction in the Plan View. Details and
dimensions must be included to accurately ascertain how
the proposed project will "FIT" the existing conditions.
The existing centerline, bearings, distances, stationing,
and any monumentation shall also be included.
All dimensions and offsets shall be referenced from the
centerline of the State highway at specific stations.
Right of way and property lines shall also be included
on the Plans.
All Plans must include cross-sections.
There must be Construction Notes for each item of the
proposed work and must be referenced to the location on
the Plans.
All slopes in the State right of way shall be 2:1 or
flatter.
HANDOUT
Page 5 of 11
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
The Street improvement Plans MUST BE SIGNED by a
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER.
The Street Improvement Plans MUST CALL OUT all existing
and proposed hydrants, street lights, and power poles.
ALL curb, gutter, wheelchair ramps, and driveways within
the State right of way MUST BE to State Standards.
The curb and gutter in the State right of way MUST BE
placed over a minimum of 4" Class 2 aggregate base
compacted to 95%relative compaction as per California
test No. 216.
ALL pavement overlays MUST begin, end, and run
perpendicular or parallel to the State highway
centerline. The overlay MUST BE feathered to the next
lane line.
We DO NOT PERMIT radius-return driveways within the State
right of way unless justified by traffic volumes prior
to permit issuance.
A soils report and design of the actual structural
section MUST BE APPROVED by this office before the
placement of the structural section.
All improvements between the curb and the State right of
way line must include a letter "to own and maintain" the
area by either the local agency or the property owner if
the local agency declines (see Landscaping Plan).
CROSS-SECTIONS
Typical cross-sections must be included.
Cross-sections are required for any work within the State
right of way.
We NEED cross-sections at 50' intervals, from 100' each
side of the project limits, along the State right of way.
Special sections are required where existing or proposed
conditions change significantly, such as a driveway.
On projects 200' or less in length, cross-sections every
25' are required with a minimum of four (4) cross-
sections.
HANDOUT
Page 6 of 11
You must furnish this office with a letter stating you
will own and maintain the proposed sidewalk.
Additional cross-sections at the center of culverts,
drainage inlets, driveways and road connections may also
be necessary.
The cross-sections MUST SHOW the existing ground or
pavement surface and the proposed improvement including
the curb, gutter, driveway, sidewalk, thickness and
limits of the overlay and any other pertinent structural
section information.
Cross-sections shall indicate both vertical and
horizontal scales and must not be distorted by more than
a factor of five (vertical = 1/5 or horizontal).
Existing and proposed elevations shall be shown at grade
breaks. Cross-slopes between grade .breaks shall be
indicated on the finish surface. Curbs, gutters,
driveways and sidewalks shall also be indicated.
On cross-sections, the centerlines, property lines and
right of way lines shall be indicated by a vertical line
and must be labeled accordingly.
It is important that the cross-section stationing
correspond to the stationing on the plans, and that the
work indicated on the cross-sections and plans is within
the same limits.
PROFILES
Profiles shall include the centerline, top of curb, flow-
line, trim-line or edge of pavement profiles, as
applicable.
The horizontal scale should match the Plan View, and the
vertical scale should be 1" = 4' or 1" = 5' (generally,
1/10 of the horizontal scale), or whatever will provide
the needed detail.
The Profiles should be combined into the Plan Views,
using half-plan/half-profile sheets.
GRADING PLANS
The Grading Plans MUST include existing and proposed
contours with finished surface and flowline elevations
· called out at control points.
HANDOUT
Page 7 of ll
Cross-slope and side-slope ratios MUST BE indicated on
the plans. The top and toe of the side slopes must be
indicated for the proposed grading.
The profile of drainage facilities SHALL BE provided,
i.e., channels, pipes, ditches, etc.
Hydraulic calculations must be provided for all new
drainage systems calculated at lO0-year storm (QlO0).
When a connection is to be made to an existing culvert
in the State right of way, the junction structure must
have a cleanout; this may be a Flood Control District
design.
The flow in an unlined channel shall not exceed the
permissible velocity stipulated in Table 862.2 of the
State Highway Design Manual. All lined channels must be
constructed per Table 872.2 of the Highway Design Manual.
STRIPING AND SIGNING pLAN
The Striping and Signing Plan may be shown on the Street
Improvement Plans, but separate Striping and Signing
Plans are preferred.
ALL existing signs and striping MUST BE shown,
identified, and dimensioned according to the TRAFFIC
MANUAL details.
ALL relocated and new signing and striping MUST BE shown,
identified, and dimensioned according to the TRAFFIC
MANUAL details.
All existing and proposed signals and detector loops must
be identified.
ALL striping, marking, and markers MUST BE shown and MUST
conform to the STATE TRAFFIC MANUAL.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The Landscape and Irrigation Plan MUST BE signed by a
REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
You MUST furnish this office with a letter stating you
will own and maintain the proposed landscaping and
irrigation (unless the landscape is a replacement in-
kind required by Caltrans).
HANDOUT
Page 8 of 11
The fixed object-traffic hazard rule must be followed.
The Sight Distance Rule MUST BE applied to the street or
driveway to determine proper placement of landscape
plantings.
All landscape planting, other than required replacement
of existing plants, will be covered by an "own and
maintain condition" contained in the encroachment permit
(or separate permit as needed). These conditions shall
remain in effect for a specific time period as defined
in the permit and/or Cooperative Highway Improvement
Agreement of public agency/private party, as applicable.
ELECTRICAL PLAN
Any work involving electrical lighting WILL REQUIRE a 50-
scale Electrical Plan on a separate sheet.
The Electrical Plan SHALL BE prepared on a reproducible
film media with blue-line prints provided for the
reviews.
Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap
ramps SHALL BE shown on the Electrical Plan.
The use of a reproduction of an existing "As-Built" as
the basis for a modification plan IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
If road work is involved, the entire package SHALL BE
PROVIDED for review, i.e., Electrical Plan, Striping
Plan, Landscape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan.
Plans MUST show the existing system as well as the
proposed system. The proposed plans MUST BE in BOLD
PRINT and the existing facilities SHALL BE shown in
dashed or broken lines.
Wattage and mounting height of the street lights SHOULD
BE specified.
SIGNAL PLAN
A 20-scale Electrical PlanMUST BE provided depicting the
existing conditions and the proposed modifications. The
Plan MUST BE AN ORIGINAL DRAWING prepared on a standard
layout size sheet (22" x.36"). A reproduction of an "As-
Built" Plan WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.
HANDOUT
Page 9 of
If road work is involved the entire package SHALL BE
PROVIDED for review, i.e., Signal Plan, Striping Plan,
Landscape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan.
Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap
ramps SHALL BE shown on the Signal Plan.
Plans MUST show the existing system as well as the
proposed system. The proposed plans MUST BE IN BOLD
PRINT and the existing facilities SHALL BE shown in
dashed or broken lines.
Any work involving signals and/or lighting S~LALL BE AT
NO COST TO THE STATE unless prior agreements were made
which shall have included all the supporting
documentation, i.e., Traffic Studies, and Traffic
Warrants. The accidental destruction of State facilities
during construction SHALL BE replaced in-kind AT NO COST
TO THE STATE. Furthermore, ANY damage resulting in
signal failure SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY.
Loop detector placement and designations SHALL BE
consistent with the attached "TYPICAL DETECTION LAYOUT".
NO detector loop SHALL BE installed in the path of a
driveway or other intersection.
The Conductor and Pole Schedules ARE NOT MERELY GUIDES;
THEY SHALL BE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE.
Lighting conductors SHALL NOT enter the signal controller
cabinet.
Luminaires SHALL BE furnished without photo-electric unit
receptacles. If the luminaire housing is provided with
a hole for the receptacle, the hole SHALL BE closed in
a weather-proof manner.
Only one (1) lamp-type ballast SHALL BE used.
Overhead clearance of utility lines MUST BE ADDRESSED.
A service wiring diagram SHALL BE PROVIDED.
A dual Type III PE Control SHOULD BE specified with a
detail drawing.
Nylon jacketed conductors SHALL NOT BE USED.
PROVIDE a stub-out for future coordination.
HANDOUT
Page 10 of 11
Controller software MUST BE approved by Caltrans.
Caltrans Maintenance SHALL BE NOTIFIED 24-HOURS IN
ADVANCE Of any detector work so that adjustments can be
made to the signal controller.
The intersection lighting schedule SHALL NOT BE
INTERRUPTED.
SIGNAL SMUT-DOWNS SHALL BE LIMITED to the hours between
9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday EXCEPT
holidays. NO SHUT-DOWNS SHALL OCCUR AFTER 12:00 NOON ON
A FRIDAY PRECEDING A HOLIDAY.
The electrical inspector SHALL BE notified 48 hours prior
to performing any work that may cause damage to the
existing signal system so that immediate adjustments or
repairs can be made to maintain the system in operation.
Traffic Operations SHALL BE notified at least 7 days in
advance of the anticipated "TURN ON,, of signal controller
from a new signal system and/or newly added phasing on
existing signal controllers for modified signal systems.
L. ADDITIONAL NEEDED ITEMS
All plans MUST distinguish the existing and proposed
construction in plan view. Details and dimensions MUST
be included to ascertain how the proposed work will"fit"
existing conditions.
Existing State centerline and stationing along the State
route MUST be added to all plans. Please contact our
Public Affairs office at (714) 383-4229 for details on
how to obtain any needed maps (Right of Way, As-Builts,
etc.).
All dimensions and offsets MUST be referenced from the
centerline of the State highway.
The State right of way MUST be shown and labeled at ALL
locations.
There SHALL be a Construction Note for each item of work
and they MUST be referenced on the plans.
The plans NEED a ,,NORTH" arrow on each sheet.
The plans MUST call out the scale used (40 or 50 scale
preferred).
HANDOUT
Page 11 of 11
We NEED a Typical cross-section of a minimum of half-
width of the State highway right of way.
We NEED profiles at stations showing the centerline, top
of curb, flow-line, and edge of pavement.
We NEED hydraulic calculations, calculated at 100-Year
Storm (QIO0) Basis.
The connection(s) to the State culvert(s) MUST have a
cleanout at the point of connection.
NO WIRE MESH may be used f~r concrete reinforcemcnt in
the State right of way.
Local agency (City, County, etc.) Standards will be
permitted in the State right of way ONLY IF they exceed
State Standards and are approved prior to permit
issuance.
There MUST be a minimum of a 10' wide area on the State
side of the right of way fence so State vehicles can be
driven along the fence for maintenance purposes.
We MUST HAVE six (6) sets of PLANS
Plans MUST BE 22" x 36" (maximum size)
Plans MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY folded 8-1/2" x 11"
You will need to submit an application to OWN AND
MAINTAIN, which MUST BE in the name of the organization
that will "own and maintain" the proposed system
(utility, sidewalk or landscaping) when it is completed,
if applicable.
The following must also be submitted if applicable:
Environmental Document
Copy of the engineer's cost estimate
Copy of the Conditions of Approval
If you have technical questions, please call Raj Chharan at
(714) 383-4536.
If you have technical questions, please call Basem E. Muallem
at (714) 383-4536.
If you have technical questions, please call Bruce Gregg at
(714) 383-4526.
PLEASE DO NOT CALL FOR A STATUS ON YOUR PERMIT UNTIL 30 CALENDAR
DAYS AFTER ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS, PLANS, INFORMATION, ETC. HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED.
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-Z09 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OP FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CIilEF
11-29-89
TO:
ATTN:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JEFF ADAMS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PARCEL MAP 24038 - AMENDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
Upgrade fire hydrants on the corner of Mercedes Street and 6th Street, and
fire hydrant in cul-de-sac on 6th Street to a super fire hydrant (6x4x2~x2½).
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
(Oepa tmeat
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Flivarside, CA 92507
December 6, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Jeff Adams
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 24038, Amended #1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5'
side yard setback.
Ver truly yours,
Robert ~ '-
Senior Land Use Technician
/sn
Administration (714) 682-8840, (714) 787-2020
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO: PLANNING / J.A.
FROM: HOWARD MILLS
DATE: November 16, 1989 LDC
RE: Parcel Map 24038 AMD #1
The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site.
The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends
approval of this project if the following conditions are included.
Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall
obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and
Safety Department.
Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut
slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or
gound cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be
provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284-
47.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance
security to be posted with the Building and Safety Department.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86,
and 284-46. Thank you.
988
Riverside County Health Department
c/o Massaro Welsh
1572 N. Waterman Av., bulte b
San ~ernardlno, CA. VZ4U2
Gentlemen:
Re: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for
Parcel Map 24038
We hereby advise you relative to the availabiHty of sanitary sewer service for
the above referenced proposed development as follows:
The property to be occupied by the sUbjec~ proposed development:
/irXr-/ Is presently located within the boundary lines of this District's
Improvement District No. U-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary
sewer service,
Must be annexed to this District's Improvement District No.
following which it will be eligible ~o receive sanitary
service,
sewer
/ /
provided:
Z)
2)
Must be included in a new District improvement district, assess-
ment district or other program to be formed and implemented for
the purpose of providing sanitary sewer facilities and service
for the general area within which this proposed development is
located, following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary
sewer service,
If you have
to contact this office.
Very trulyyours, ~.
/
Robert N. Spradlin
Manager of New Business
The developer completes all necessary financial and other
arrangements therefore, as determined by the District, with the
District by April 1990 ; and
That no limiting conditions exist which are beyond this District's
control or cannot be cost-effectively and/or reasonably satisfied
by the District, which conditions may include but.are not limited
to, acts of God, regulatory agency requirements or decisions,
or legal actions initiated by others.
any questions or comments regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate
2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 76 TO
PERMIT OPERATION OF A HOTEL AND FUTURE
RESTAURANT AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF MORENO ROAD.
WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Plot Plan No. 76 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes
the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
( 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP76 1
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 76 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
|C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\PP76 2
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 76 will be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
Plot Plan No. 76 is a commercial
project. The proposed site is
designated as commercial by SWAP.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
If the proposed use is inconsistent, it
will not be detrimental because of the
commercial nature of surrounding
USeS .
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The proposed use complies with local
planning and zoning laws which are
prepared in conformance with State
planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns; access, and intensity of use.
The proposed site plan and tentative
parcel map are in conformance with
Ordinance 30,8.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Potential impacts are mitigated to a
level of non-significance under the
Initial Study and Conditions of
Approval.
STAFFRPT\PP76 3
i)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses.
The harmony in scale, bulk, height,
intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, through
appropriate building mass reduction
techniques and landscape installation,
and distance from planned adjacent
structures.
j)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
A. The project conforms to existing
zoning and SWAP designations.
k)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
A. The project will take access from
Moreno Road and 6th Street.
I)
The design of the project, the type of
improvements, and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
The project has a 28 foot wide drive
aisle from Marino Drive to 6th Street.
CC&R's will be recorded which will
ensure access.
m)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
This Staff Report contains mapping,
Conditions of Approval, and an Initial
Study which support the Staff
recommendation o
D. Pursuant to Section 18.301c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
STAFFRPT\PP76 4
( 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law
and City ordinances.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for
the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible
with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project
and a Negative Declaration, theFefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 76 for the operation and construction of a motel and future restaurant
located at the south side of Moreno Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHA I RMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANN I NG COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP76 5
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDCMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 76.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\PP76 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 76
Project Description: Plot Plan for a 92 Room
Motel and Adiacent Restaurant Use
Planning Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 92 room hotel and adjacent
restaurant use.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 76. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 76 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated August 20, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
STAFFRPT\PP76 1
10.
11.
12.
13,
15.
16.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District~s transmittal dated November 1~,, 1989, a copy of which
is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated
November 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San
Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated July 28, 1990, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CalTrans
transmittal dated August 1, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
Water District transmittal dated October 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of 149 parking spaces and facilities for 9 bicycles shall be provided
in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.
149 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A.
The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a
minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
STAFFRPT\PP76 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2q-.
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner~s
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations) and Exhibit C
( Materials Board ).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped
earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the project
perimeter, excepting the Moreno Road frontage, and the CalTrans right-of-
way which requires chain link. The required wall and/or berm shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and
Safety and the Planning Director. The wall plans shall be submitted with
landscape plans, and shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits; Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
decorative masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from
external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
STAFFR PT\PP76 3
25.
26.
27.
29.
30.
31.
32.
9 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved
by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the restaurant project
area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Existing pine trees adjacent to the southwesterly property line of proposed
Parcel No. 3 shall remain, and shall be reflected on future proposed landscape
plans. If it is proven that it is impossible to retain the existing trees, then
final landscape plans shall indicate the replacement of trees which are 36" box
or greater.
Elevations for the proposed restaurant site shall require plot plan approval
from the Planning Commission.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
STAFFRPT\PP76 4
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
33. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: .
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department,' and
CATV Franchise.
CalTrans
34.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains
shall be installed to City Standards.
35.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following
right-of-way.
Interstate Highway 15
36.
The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2q"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
37.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
38.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
39.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
STAFFRPT\PP76 5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Engineerinq
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Moreno Road from Front Street ~ North )
to Front Street {South) and for 6th Street from the northeasterly terminus to
Metcedes Street.
~,3. Main Circulation Isleway shall be designed for 28' width minimums.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
On-street parking shall be prohibited along the Moreno Road frontage of the
project (approx. 165 feet) by posting the proper signage along the curb as
approved by the City Engineer. The exact locations and sign type shall be
included in the design of the signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\PP76 6
.0:
FROM:
RE:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA DATE:
ATTN: Mark Rhoades
Health Specialist IV
Plot Plan No. 76 /
08-20-90
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot
Plan No. 76 and has no ob3ectlons. Sanitary sewer and
water services are avaxlable in this area. Prior to any
buxldina plan submittals, the followln~ items will be
required:
1 "W~ll-serve" letters from the water and
sewerxnO aoencIes.
Three complete sets of plans for the
swlmm~nQ pool/spa will be submitted,
~n order to ensure compliance with the
California Administrative Code. California
Health and Safety Code and the Uniform
BuildinG Code.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted, xncludinO a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumb~n~
schedule ~n order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
SM:dr
DOM~A~02 (4m0)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
/ ~BFORN#A ~
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
November 6, 1990
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PLOT PLAN 76
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot
plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures
be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized
fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established
in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x4"x2½x2½), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than
165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved
vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation
or built-in fire protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer
and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
6. Provide a six foot block wall along south and east property line.
KENNETH L EDWARDS
(:HIEF ENGINEER
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787'2015
FAX NO. (714) 788-9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 52502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Re://4
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall Be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
/This project is in Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in acco ith the ap able rules and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~av/hbte~r°ject will be
constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours~
JOHN H. ICASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
2024 Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374
(714) 792-1334 * 792-0052 · 825-4825 · 825-4823
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER
Director
July 28, 1990
City of Temecula Development Review Committee
'lemecula Planning Departmen[
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
re: PALEONTOLOGIC SENSITIVITY REVIEW
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on nonrenewable paleontologic
resources within the City of Temecula. The museum generally reviews
proposed developments on an individual basis. This review, however, will
summarized cases following the August 2 agenda you forwarded in order to
insure a timely response.
"' I I
..... ,.v~.,e.,.eo "Sh'"'the tosslllleruu~ ~ .. ~ -+inn Rnn~afruGjr. imnn
RE: PP 76
Page 2
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a
fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement
that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be
included on the title page of the building plans.
7. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered
must appear on the title page of the building plans.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where exit signs are required
by Section 3314 (a).
9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
10. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform
Building Code and National Fire Protection Association.
11. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
12.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire
protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the
Fire Department prior to installation.
13.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00
to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
14.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling
the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
15. Motel must meet highrise life safety standards per Riverside County
Ordinance 546, Section 801.
16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
LC:rmac
(3)
PP 76
]'he parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction
excavation will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to
develop a site-specific program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic
resources. This program should include: (1) monitoring of excavation
by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered
specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3)
curation of specimens into an established repository; and {4) a report of
findings with complete specimen inventory.
Robert E. Reynolds
Curator, Ear;h Sciences
San Bernardino County lquseum
October 6, 1988
Board of Directors:
Richard D. Steffey
President
James A. Darby
Sr. Vice President
Ralph Daily
Doug Kulberg
Jon A. Lundin
Jeffrey L. Minlder
T.C. Rowe
Stan T. Mills
General Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
DirecWr of Finance -
Thomas R. McAliester
Director of Operations
& Maintenance
Doris V. Baker
District Secretary
McCormick & Kidman
l~gal Counsel
Riverside County Division
of Environmental Health
Land Use Section
Post Office Box 1370
Riverside, California 92502
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: P.M. 24038, Lot 1
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Senga
Doherty at (714) 676-4101.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Bob Lemons, P.E.
Acting Director of Engineering
F012A/D1005884
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1, Name of Proponent:
Leland/Sunq Development
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27574 Commerce Center St,, 138
Temecula, CA 92390
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 8, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~,038/
Plot Plan No. 76
6. Location of Proposal:
Southeast corner of Moreno Road
and Metcedes Street
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP76 I
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP76 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP76 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances ( including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticldes,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ceneration of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\PP76 4
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? -~ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP76 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP76 6
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP76 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.
b-c.
Air
2. a.
No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill
slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic
substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted
per the engineer~s requirements and as a result, should not
result in unstable earth conditions.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree
and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
Maybe. Development of the
substantial grading; however,
topography.
proposed project may require
it will not alter the existing
Maybe. However, a Condition of Approval has been included
which requires consultation with a licensed paleontologist who
will mitigate any identified impacts.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and
significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading,
retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of
watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after
grading.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could
be affected by the proposed project.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault
hazard zone area according tothe Riverside County General Plan
Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project will
address and mitigate these potential issues.
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the
project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions
will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air
emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the
areams air quality.
No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable
odors or alter the area~s climate.
STAFFRPT\PP76 8
Water
3. a,d-e,
C#gl
Plant Life
4. a-d.
Animal Life
5. a,c.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is
approximately one-half mile away.
Yes. The proposed project will affect existing drainage and
runoff patterns. However, a drainage and grading plan has been
accepted which mitigates potential impacts to a level of non-
significance.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of
water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the
site will offset the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns will
continue to flow to the streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply
or system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area.
To help mitigate the project"s impact, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the
plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or
endangered species should be affected. New species of plants
will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is
not considered a negative impact.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been
experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is
anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the
site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals
common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered
specie habitates the site.
STAFFRPT\PP76 9
ao
Liqht and Glare
7.
Land Use
Natural Resources
9. a-b.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Population
11.
Maybe. The proposed project is within the Stephen~s Kangaroo
Rat fee impact area. Although the site contains no individuals of
the species because of previous grading activities, the project
will be required to pay fees in accordance with Ordinance 663.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to
increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be
significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the
use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid
interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow".
The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced
by the proposed project.
No. The 5outhwest Area Plan designates the subject site for
General Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General
Commercial.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Maybe. If the operating tenant uses any hazardous materials in
their operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan
would be submitted to the City.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street
or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City
and Police Department.
No. The proposed hotel/restaurant building will generate some
jobs but not a significant amount to alter the areais population.
STAFFRPT\PP76 10
Housinq
12.
No. The proposed hotel and restaurant will not generate a
significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional
housing.
Transportation/Circulation
1:3. a,c.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to
and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this
increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the
project may add an incremental impact to the Rancho California
Road/1-15 Interchange which is currently operating at capacity
during peak hours, This potential impact may be mitigated by a
transportation improvement mitigation fee.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
use. The project will need 1~,9 parking spaces and 9 bicycle
racks. The proposed plan illustrates spaces.
Maybe. The .proposed project will improve a portion of Moreno
Road which loops around and connect to Front Street. However,
the Engineering Department has included Conditions of Approval
with traffic mitigation measures.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air ·
traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
1~'. a,b,c,e,
Yes. The proposed hotel and restaurant use will require public
services in the areas of police, fire, schools, maintenance of
roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered
significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the
appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the
impact and continuing need for services over the long term.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these
public services.
Enerqy
15. a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use
or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
STAFFRPT\PP76 I1
Utilities
16. a-f.
No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17, a-b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are used on site, then that may
create a potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be
used at the site, a plan for their use and disposal will be
submitted to the City.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open
to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are
consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding
buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is
unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is
discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on
site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of
historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or
restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21. a-d.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
STAFFRPT\PP76 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP76
VI<; INITY A4A P'
4~5
Rancho California'~><,~
TEMECULA QUADRANGLE
7.5 MINUTE SERIES CTOPOGRAPHIC)
730~ FEET 4~ 117'07'30"
480 OOO
ET
Course
3702
27'30"
I PM 240,~8 I EXlSTING ZONING I 3
T|IrRRA VISTA I~)
App: MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP-'JdHN BEENE LOGATIONAL MAP
Use: DIVIDE 4.99 AC. INTO ~ LOTS
Area: TEMECULA IstSup. Dist. C~L~F.
Sec. 12 T. 8S.R.~W. Assessor's Bk. 92.1 Pg. 07
Circuition 15 FREEWAY VARIABLE
Element RANCHO CALIF. RD.--ARTERIAL--IIO'
Rd. Bk. Pg.56A DlteOI/22/90 Drawn ByTB{/7~/ ~ .
400'RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLY
:OMMEqCI
CZ 4738
I ' · $
GTE --CZ4T3e
,
t?4
BLDGS,
ImllI
, App: MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP- JOHN BEENE LOCATIONqA~. NAP
Use: DIVIDE 4.99 AC. INTO 3 LOTS ~-
Area: TEMECULA IstSup. Dist. c~u~.
Sac. 12 T. BS,R. 3W. Aaae~or's Bk. 921 Pg. 07
CircuJatjoll 15 FREEWAY VARIABLE
Elmrant RANCHO CALIERD. ARTERIAL I10'
Rd. Bk. 1~].56A DateOil22/90 Drawn By~,r~./
400' RNERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~0~
- - C.,.,.s-~: ft't4Z.qc~rg/r.e-],6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 2qO38
Plot Plan No. 76
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No.
Condition No.
Condition No. 31
Condition No. 30
Condition No.
Condition No. 1~·
Condition No. 13
T.P.M. 2~,038
P.P. 76
32
9
37
STAFFRPT\PP76 7
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council Denial
of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Tierra Investment
Walter B. Dixon
57 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8
acres.
South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500
feet easterly of Moraga Road.
R -3-3000
( General Residential, 3,000 square feet
per dwelling unit)
North: R-1 (Single Family Residential,
7,200 square foot rain. lot size)
South: Ro3 ( General Residential }
East: R-1 (Single Family Residential,
7,200 square foot rain. lot size)
West: R-3-2,500 ( General Residential,
2,500 square foot per
dwelling unit)
PROPOSED ZON I NG: Same
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family Residential Tract
Apartments Under Construction
Single Family Residential Tract
Vacant (Proposed Town Homes)
STAFF R PT\TM25603 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Lot size:
No. of Lots:
Min. Lot Size:
Max. Lot Size:
Conceptual
Proposal:
20.8 acres
57 lots
9,000 sq.ft.
24,695 sq.ft.
Construction of ~-plexes
on each lot
This project was first submitted to the County on
December 1, 1989. The first Land Development
Committee for this project was conducted February
1, 1990. The project was found to be incomplete at
that time and additional information was requested
for review of the project. The project was
transferred to the City of Temecula April 2~,, 1990.
The project is a proposed 57 lot multi-family
residential subdivision of 20.8 acres located on the
south side of Margarita Road east of Moraga Road.
The site is currently vacant rolling hill topography.
The project is designed with two north-south cul-
de-sacs off of Margarita Road with two east-west
connecting streets between the cul-de-sacs. The
project proposes to mass grade the site to provide
large building pads for multi-family units on each
lot. The design of the tract is for all the lots to.
function independently with no common open space
or recreational facilities being provided within the
project.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual
development plan for the site. This conceptual
development plan is for the construction of ~,-plex
units on the individual lots. With ~, units per lot, as
conceptually proposed, the end result would be 228
rental units with the possibility of 57 separate
owners. The current zoning for the site would allow
a maximum of 302 units. The current zoning for the
site is R-3-3000 which requires 3,000 square feet
per unit and a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
With the current zoning, a u,-plex unit would
require a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. 35
of the proposed lots are too small for ~,-plex units
and only a maximum of three units could be built on
these lots. The maximum number of dwelling units
that could be constructed on the proposed project
with this design is 219 units. A chart showing the
proposed lot sizes and maximum number of units per
lot is attached.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 2
The project, as designed, proposes a crib wall up to
a height of 29 feet along the southern portion of the
project. The applicant has an agreement with the
property owner to the south to maintain the area
between the property line and the crib wall.
The project also requires the use of retaining walls
between the lots and along the access road to
Margarita Road (Avenida Tierra Dulce). The wall
along the road is up to 16 feet in height while the
walls between lots are up to 8 feet high.
The design of the project also requires off-site
drainage easements be obtained. The applicant has
agreements with the surrounding property owners
to accept the off-site drainage.
Tract design concerns are due to the mass grading
of the rolling hill terrain. These concerns include
the need for high retaining walls and off-site
drainage easements.
The project has been reviewed by the Development
Review Committee on two occasions. The project
has been redesigned to address some of the
concerns of the Development Review Committee. A
second access has been provided to the project and
the project has been conditioned to provide for a
flashing yellow light for increased pedestrian safety
along Margarita Road. Major concerns still existing
include:
2.
3.
u...
5.
Mass grading and the use of high walls.
An increase in school attendance in the high
density area.
Lack of a formal development proposal for the
project, including architectural and
landscaping standards.
The conceptual development of u,-plex units
does not conform to the current zoning of the
site and the proposed tract map.
The high retaining walls along Avenida Tierra
Dulce at the access with Margarita Road.
GENERAL PLAN SWAP AND
ZONING CONSISTENCY:
The project is not likely to be consistent with the
proposed General Plan because of the design of the
project. The multi-family project does not provide
any common open space or recreational facilities.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 3
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
CONCLUSION:
FINDINGS:
As indicated elsewhere in the report, the conceptual
development plan does not conform to the current
zoning for the site.
The environmental impacts of this project can be
mitigated by project design and compliance with the
Conditions of Approval. Therefore, a mitigated
negative declaration is recommended.
The proposed subdivision does not include a
development project. Without a development
proposal, there is no guarantee of what will be built
on the site. Consequently, there is very little City
control of proposed projects so long as they conform
to the zoning for the site and are ~, units or less.
With the current proposal, 57 different owners
could propose 57 separate multi-fami ly units ranging
from tri-plexes to eight-plexes on the site.
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
The proposed tract map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for the project. A mitigated
negative Declaration is recommended for
adoption.
The tract map has been reviewed for
possible environmental impacts. The
project has been conditioned to
mitigated possible environmental
impacts.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be inconsistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time.
The project proposes mass grading and
does not provide any common open
space or recreational facilities for a
multi-family project.
It is likely that all future subdivisions
of multi-family zoned properties will
require a development plan or a plan
residential development to be
processed concurrently with the
tentative tract map.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 u,
There is a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The project impacts current
recreational facilities and will set a
precedence of not providing
recreational facilities in multi-family
projects.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law.
The project is consistent with current
zonin9 for the site.
The site is not suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The project, as designed, requires
mass grading of the site and the use of
retaining walls and crib walls to a
height of 29 feet to provide for the
proposed flat pads.
The project does not conform to the
conceptual development plan and
current zoning for the site.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental initial study has
been completed and no unique habitats
were observed on site and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Potential residential units will have
significant southern exposure which
allows for proper solar accessibilityfor
active solar potential.
All lots do not have acceptable access to
existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-
way which are open to, and are useable by,
vehicular traffic.
The secondary access to Margarita
Road with proposed retaining walls of
16 feet is not acceptable access.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property.
The project does not conflict with
existing easements, the Conditions of
Approval require the project to
conform to State, County and Town
codes for subdivision development.
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
ADOPT Resolution 90- recommending that the
City Council Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
based on the analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report.
SJ: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Initial Study
Exhibits
STAFFRPT\TM25603 6
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVI DE A 20.8
ACRE PARCEL INTO A 57 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA
ROAD 1,500 FEET EASTERLY OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-370-005.
WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended denial of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\TM25603 1
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, ( hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of
the Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in denying the
project, each of the following:
a)
The proposed tract map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for the project. A mitigated
negative Declaration is recommended for
adoption.
The tract map has been reviewed for
possible environmental impacts. The
project has been conditioned to
mitigated possible environmental
impacts.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 2
b)
c)
d)
e)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be inconsistent with the Ceneral
Plan being prepared at this time.
The project proposes mass grading and
does not provide any common open
space or recreational facilities for a
multi-family project.
It is likely that all future subdivisions
of multi-family zoned properties will
require a development plan or a plan
residential development to be
processed concurrently with the
tentative tract map.
There is a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The project impacts current
recreational facilities and will set a
precedence of not providing
recreational facilities in multi-family
projects.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law.
The project is consistent with current
zoning for the site.
The site is not suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
The project, as designed, requires
mass grading of the site and the use of
retaining walls and crib walls to a
height of 29 feet to provide for the
proposed flat pads.
The project does not conform to the
conceptual development plan and
current zoning for the site.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 3
f)
h)
i)
j)
k)
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental initial study has
been completed and no unique habitats
were observed on site and no
significant impacts are anticipated.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
Potential residential units will have
significant southern exposure which
allows for proper solar accessibility for
active solar potential.
All lots do not have acceptable access to
existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-
way which are open to, and are useable by,
vehicular traffic.
The secondary access to Margarita
Road with proposed retaining walls of
16 feet is not acceptable access.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property.
The project does not conflict with
existing easements, the Conditions of
Approval require the project to
conform to State, County and Town
codes for subdivision development.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 4
PASSED, DENIEDANDADOPTEDthis dayof
· 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFF R PT\TM25603 5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No: 25603
Project Description: 57 Lot Multiple
Family Subdivision of 20.8 Acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-005
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~,60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~,60. The expiration
date is
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
~,60.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer
and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall
address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 I
10.
11.
12.
13.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of Lots E, F, and
C Open Space, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to
establishment of the district.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical
height of thirty ( 30 ) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall
be a minimum of one-half the slope height.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and
irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the
City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading
permits.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
15.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-3-3000 zone, all 4-plex lots shall have
a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 2
16.
17.
18.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
(ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate
identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the
office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be
forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Plannin9 Department
and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Margarita Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-d-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 3
19.
20.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 4
21.
22.
23.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant (Class A ) rods as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten {10) feet.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to
include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift
mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the
project; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the
project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
1~,3 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~,60. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees
to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2L)633, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
STAFF R PT\TM25603 5
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
25.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, Water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired
in the residence.
26.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
27.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
28.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's} shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract
maps. The CC~,R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining
the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior
of all buildings.
29.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner~s group, or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet
the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CCF, R~s which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC~,R~s shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required
by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
30.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
31.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
32. All slopes are to be a maximum of 2:1.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 6
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Redesign lot pattern at Lot C intersection with Margarita Road to reduce
retaining walls. Retaining wall along street shall be no greater than 6 feet
high.
Redesign entire tract to provide minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet.
Provide design manual and criteria to be recorded with the map. Prior to
recordation. the designs shall be approved by the Planning Director.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which
shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met
and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall
reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire theoff-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations from the
Riverside County Flood Control District. If the project lies within an adopted
flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10. 25 of City of Temecula Land
Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage
facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy
Permits.
Theapplicant shall comply with thefire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Department's letter dated November 19, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist's transmittal dated February 2, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 7
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the UCR
Archaeologist's transmittal dated January 8, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
~,6. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
48.
Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement,
or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (q3~/55' ).
Avertida Cima Del Sol, between Margarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be
improved with ~ feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 103, Section A (q~'/66').
Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall
be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 104, Section A (~,0'/60').
STAFFRPT\TM25603 8
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
¸58.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the
final map.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall
be delineated or noticed on the final map.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities, including storm drain on Margarita Road.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 9
59.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
60. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
61.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard ~,00 and ~,01 (curb sidewalk).
62.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
63.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~," x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
64.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
65.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
66.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
67.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
68.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
69.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
70.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 10
71.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
72.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
73.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
75.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
76.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
77.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
9u, of the State Standard Specifications.
78.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Nogative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 11
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
79.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered civil engineer,
and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenida Sonoma
to Avenida Cima Del Sol and Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary
transitions. These signing and striping plans shall be included with the
street improvement plans. This design shall include a left turn pocket on
Margarita Road westbound for southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125~ of
storage capacity and 120~ of approach transition.
80.
Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered civil engineer to
show 11/2" rigid conduit, with pull rope, and #3 pull boxes on 200 foot
centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This
design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved
by the City Engineer.
81.
Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida
Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer,
approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street
improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement
Agreement with the City to receive a 3596 reimbursement for the cost of design
and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No.
25u,~,3. A credit shall be given toward this developer~s signal mitigation fees
for the 65% responsibility of the design and construction of this flashing
yellow school signal.
82.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
83.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered civil
engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for
any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation, as
required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
84.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and
striping plan.
85. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan.
86.
The developer shall inform the land owners that when the median on Margarita
Road is constructed, there will be no break provided to permit left turning
movements into or from the proposed second development access road,
Avenida Tierra Dulce. Avenida Cima Del Sol shall be the only full access
intersection provided for this project.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 12
87. All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per
the special provisions and the approved plan.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 13
11/19/90 09:29 COUNTi' FIRE PLANNING DIU]SION P. 02
4&2~90A,T,8 8TR]R~T, BUI'['B 4D5
INDIO, CA 93~;
(6t9) 34~,88,%6
November 19, 19g0
CITY OF TEHECULA
ATTN: PLANFINS DEPARTMENT
TRACT 25603
With respect to the conditions of approval regardins the above referenced parcel
map, the Fire Department rscomnende the following fire protection measures
be ~rcvided in laterdance with RiveTlids County O=dinencee and/or rs~oBn~zed
fire protection s=andardst
The FIre Department is required to let a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construc~ion Of ill commercial buildings using the procedure established
in Ordinance 546,
Fzcvi~e cr show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 Gl~i
for a 2 hour duration It 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the Job site.
A~provad super lira hydrants, (6';xA"x2~xaj) shell be located at each erreat
intellection end spaced not more thee 330 feet apart in any direction with
no po=~ion o{ any lot frontage mcte than 165 feat from a hydrant,
Applicant/developer shell furnish one copy of the Water system plans to
the Fire Depar~ent fo~ review. Plan~ shall conform tO the fits hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow
re~ui=emanta. Plans shell be signed/approved by e registered civil engineer
and the local water c~tpan~ with the followini certif~cStionl "I certify
t~et =he dee~Sm of the wetIT system Is in accordance with the requiremanes
prescribed ~y the liversida County Fire Department."
Install s oo~,plete lice sprinkler system in all buildings requirtu2 a
lira Slow el 1500 Clam or Irestar. Tha poet indicator valve and firs
department oon~ootion shall be located co the front, vithh 50 feet of
e h~drsnt, and a mlnLmum of 25 feet from ~he buildin2(e). A e~atement
t~eC the b~tldinl(s) will be automatically fare sprinklered muac be
included on the title pale el the buildSriB plans.
11/19x90 09:58 COUNTY FIRE PLANNING DIVISION P.O~
25603 PeSo 2
Sheceil e lupervieed waterflov monicorini fire alarm eyetom, Plane must be
eubmittod to the Firm Department for approval prior to ineCaZlation, ae
required by the gnifo~n BuildinS Code.
Zn lieu of fire sprinkler n~uiremente, buildinS(c) must be area separated
into square Eeot comparemoats. aperoved by the Yire Department, as per
Sec~io~ 505 (e) of the ~mi~o~m Building Code,
· etacement that the buildice rill be au:or~etically fire sprinklered
must appee~ on the title pass of the buildtni plane,
Certain deslinseed areas will be required to be main~eined as fire lanes.
Xnstall portable fire oxCiniuishers with a minimum ratin2 cf 2A-iOBC.
Contact a certified axtinSuleher compar~v for ~ro~er Dlacement 0~ equipment.
Prior Eo issuance o~ buildtoe pemite, the applicant/developer shall
be responsible to submit e check or money order in the amount of $~58.00
to the ~ivareide County Fire Depar:mlnC for plan check fees.
12. Prior ~o the issuance oE buildinS pez~ice, the developer s~a11 deposit
with the City of Tamerule, · check or money order equalin2
the lu~ of 2jr per s~uaza font at m~t/Sa~ion for ~ire penCeorion impacts.
Thll amount must be lubmit~ad le~aroce~y from the plan cheek review fee.
12. ties1 oondiciene will ~, ~adreeeed when ~ulldin2 plcne 8~a reviewed in the
BuLldinS and ~aEety Office.
All questions reaardin2 the maani~s of conditions shall be referred to the
Plennins and K~£nee~ins e=aff.
Chie~ 2ire Department Plam~er
LAURA Cabrile Firs 8dEcry 8pecial!st
LCzrmac
DATE: January 8, 1990
:IiV,zDiDE coun;.
PL nnin(; DEP, :IE[;IEn;
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety - Land Use
Building and Safety - Grading
Surveyor - Ken Teich
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Rancho California Water Dist.
Southern CalifOrnia Edison-DQug Davies
Southern California Gqs
General Telephone
Caltrans )8
City of Temecula
Temecula Yqlley Unified School DiSt.
Commissioner Turner
Meadowview Community Assoc.
Audobon SOciety
Sierra Club
UCR - Archaeological Unit
San Bernardino County Museum
Community Plans
RECEIVED IN
ARU
JAN 17 1990
TRACT 25603-----*~Tm--~) ..... E.A. 34677 -
Tierra Investment - Walter B. Dixon -
Rancho California Area' - First
Supervisorial District N of Rancho
California Rd., E of Maraga Rancho Rd. -
R-3-3,000 Zone - 20.83 Acres into 58 Lots
- Schedule A - Mod 119 - A.P. 921-370-005
'lease review the case described above, ,,along ,with the :attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has* ~een ,tentatively scheduled for ~February 1, 1990. If it
clears, it will then go to pub!ic..,hearing../ ~ *I ,*, ,, ' '
Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 1, 1990 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact
Lisa Cooke at 787-1363.
Planner
COMMENTS:
The project area ~s surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger project (see
MF 991); no sites ~ere recorded. If, during construction, cultural resources are
encountered, it is recu~mme_nded that the area be reev~luated by a qualified
archaeologist.
DATE: 1/23/90 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
rs
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
Archaeological Research Unit
universiitv of California
RIverside, CA 92521
JAN 2 6 1990.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787'6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDiO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL LETTER
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 2, 1990
TO: Lisa Cooke - Team 1
FROM: Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
RE: Tentative Tract Map 25603
Slope Stability Report No. 206
The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the
subject site:
"Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Parcel 28 Tract Map 3334, Rancho
California Area, Riverside County, CA," by California Geo Tech, dated December
18, 1989.
This report determi ned that:
The on site earth materials consist of flat-lying, interbedded units of
the Pauba formation comprised of sands, silty sands and silty sands
with some clay.
Fill slopes are expected to be stable against rotational failure to a
maximum height of 30 feet and cut slopes to a maximum height of 20 feet
for slopes at a ratio of 2:1.
This report recommended that:
1. All grading shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Uniform Building Code as amended by County Ordinance 470.
2. The project Geotechnical Engineer should review the foundation and
grading plans prior to grading.
Fill slopes should be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other
suitable equipment. Relative compaction shall be at least 90 percent
on the finished slope face.
This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for
report. The recommendations made in this report shall
design and construction of this project.
a slope stability
be adhered to in the
SAK:mp
NOV 1 ,q 1990'
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA. 92503 (M~ilinq Address - P.O. Box 7600 925~3-7600)
FACS # (714) 358-45?9
November 13. 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92390
AI'rN: S'~'KVI]; Jh~dN'NINO
RE: T~qTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
M.B. 54125-30.
(58 LOTS)
25603: LOT 28, TRACT NO. 334,
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Tract
Map No. 25603 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed accordinQ to
plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not
less than one inch equals 200 feet, alonQ wlth the
original.drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints
shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
valves and fire hydrants; pipe and 3oint
specifications, and the size of the maln at the
3unction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5,
Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title
22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system in Tract Map 25603 is
in accordance with the water system expansion plans
of the Rancho California Water District and that the
water service, storage, and distribution system
will be adequate to provide water service to
such Tract MAD".
City of Temecula
Paue Two
Attn: Steve Jiannino
November 13. 1990
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that
it will sumply water to such tract mad at any speclfic
quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any
other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a
responsible official of the water company.
~.~h~..weeks Prior to the request for
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California
Water Dlstrict a~reeino to serve domestic water to each
and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with
the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial
arranuements to be made ~rior to the recordation of
the final maD.
This subdivision Is within the Eastern Municipal Water
District and shall be connected to the sewers of the
D~str~ct. The'sewer system shall be installed accordino to
plans and specifications as aDDroved by the District, the
County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent Drlnts
of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in
triplicate, alonU with the orlolnal drawinu, to the County
Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint
specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. A single plat
lndicatinO location of sewer lines and water lines shall be
a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall
be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district
wlth the followin~ certification: "I certify that the
design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract No. 25603 is
in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the
Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract maD."
City of Temecula
PaGe Three
Attn: Steve Jiannlno
November 13, 1990
Tb_~.~]?l~_n._s.._3/g._s_t_._b3_sub~_tted to the County__Survevor's Office
~_Qo__.~t_e._Y.~iW~ at least two weeks .]~/.kg_r___t_o the_ request for the
~g!~!_~.,ation of the final
It wlll be necessary for financial arranaements to be
comDletelV flnallzed prior to recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
ironmentall Health Specialist
IV
SM:dr
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. NamedProponent:
Tierra Investments
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 332
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 699-63q9
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 17, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 25603
6. Location of Proposal:
Marqarita Road, 1,500 (+/-) feet
easterly of Moraqa Road
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
X
X
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
STAFFRPT\TM25603 1
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 3
10.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oi!, pesticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution. density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 4
16.
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X __
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
d, Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
includin9 roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ X
Energy, Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFF R PT\TM25603 5
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 6
Yes Maybe No
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. }
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM25603 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
1.a.
1 .b-f.
1.g.
2.a-c.
3.a,c.
3.b.
3.d-f.
3.g.
3.h.
3.i.
u,.a.
~.b.
~.c.
No. The project is not located in any known unstable earth areas.
Yes. The current topography consists of rolling hill type terrain. The
area will be mass graded which will be a major change in the topography
of the site and cause possible soil erosion. All mitigation measures will
be included in the grading and building permits process. Prior to any
construction, a City-maintained permit must be obtained and adhered
to.
No. The area is not located in a hazard zone and people will not be
exposed to hazards.
No. The project is a residential subdivision and should not have a
substantial effect to the air. No unusual developments are proposed.
Yes. The project proposes mass grading and will alter the current
drainage patterns. The course of flood waters will also be altered. The
project will have to conform to the recommendations of the Riverside
County Flood Control District and the City Engineer to mitigate flood
and drainage concerns.
Yes. The project will add road and housing units which will decrease
the absorption rate of the site. All development causes a decrease in
absorption rate, this will not be a significant impact.
No. The project will not have a significant effect.
Yes. The project will affect ground water because of a decrease in the
absorption rate. The project will not have a significant effect.
No. The project will not require the use of a substantial amount of
water.
No. The project is not within a flood hazard zone and will not pose a
threat to people.
Yes. The native vegetation will be removed. No unique species were
observed on site. There will not be a substantial impact.
No. No rare or unique plant species were observed on site.
Yes. The proposed multi-family project will introduce new vegetation
to the area. The project is conditioned to use drought tolerant and
native plant species. There will not be a significant impact.
No. The area is not currently used for agricultural products.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 8
5.a.
5.b.
5.c.
6.b.
7.
9.a,b.
10.a,b.
11.
12.
13.a.
13.b.
13.c.
13.d,e.
Yes. The development process will eliminate existing native animal
species. This will not be a significant impact. The project is a
residential in-fill project.
Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat Habitat Study Area. No Stephen°s
Kangaroo Rats were observed on site. The project has been conditioned
to pay the appropriate fees for K-Rat mitigation.
Maybe. The existing site will be graded. No wetlands or unique
habitat exists on site. The project will not have a significant impact.
Yes. The area is currently vacant. The major noise increase will be
during construction and grading activities. This will be for a limited
time period and will not be a significant impact.
No. No severe noise producing activities are proposed.
Maybe. All lighting will be hooded and directed away from public
rights-of-way and adjoining properties. The project is conditioned to
conform to the recommendations contained in the Palomar Observatory
Outdoor Lighting Policy.
No. The project conforms to existing zoning and to SWAP.
No. The project is a residential project and will not have a substantial
impact on natural resources.
No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a
threat.
Yes. The area is currently vacant and proposes
development. This will alter the population, but the
consistent with current zoning and SWAP.
residential
project is
Yes. The project will create housing units on vacant land. The area
is zoned for this, so no significant impact will occur.
Yes. The project could provide a maximum 219 dwelling units which will
increase vehicular movement. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence
to Engineering and Traffic Conditions.
Yes. The project will increase the demand for new parking. The
project will provide the required parking for the proposed use.
Maybe. The project will increase travel on existing roadways. The
project will be conditioned to provide for necessary street improvements
and pay capital improvement fees.
No. The project will not impact the circulation pattern or alternate
transportation methods.
STAFF R PT\TM25603 9
13.f.
14.a-f.
15.a,b.
16.a-f.
17.a,b.
18.
19.
20.a.
21 .a-c.
21 .d.
Yes. The project will increase traffic and possible hazards. Part of the
mitigation will be with the installation flashing yellow lights for
increased pedestrian safety.
Yes. The project proposes a residential development which will
increase service needs. The project is conditioned to pay the proper
fees for mitigation.
No. The project will not require a substantial use of energy.
No. All necessary utilities exist in the vicinity of the site. The project
is a residential in-fill project.
No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a
significant hazard.
Maybe. The mass grading of site and the use of retaining walls and
crib walls could be objectionable aesthetically. The site could be
designed to incorporate contour grading.
Yes. The multi-family residential project with no recreational facilities
will impact the current City recreational facilities. Mitigation will be
achieved by adherence to the Quimby Ordinance.
Maybe. The area is in a possible sensitive paleontology area. During
grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
Maybe. The project impacts the environment in many ways, but no
significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
No. No substantial impacts will occur.
STAFFRPT\TM25603 10
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
/
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\TM25603 11
LOCATION~,~ ~,o--
· ·
r- ·
ZONING
CASE
CZ 2757
~9~o ' CZ '
INDIVIDUAL LOT DATA ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract No. 25603
Net Maximum
Lot No. Lot Area No. of Units
1 10,036 3
2 11,310 3
3 11,165 3
4 11,600 3
5 11,935 4
6 11,460 3
7 11,376 3
8 12,833 4
9 17,180 5
10 24,695 8
11 20,800 7
12 15,540 5
13 14,145 4
14 12,240 4
15 12,240 4
16 12,240 4
17 12,806 4
18 13,080 4
19 11,165 3
20 10,585 3
21 10,005 3
22 9,628 3
23 10,815 3
24 19,685 6
25 20,400 6
26 10,910 3
27 12,900 4
28 9,125 3
29 9,000 3
30 9,000 3
31 9,548 3
32 10,147 3
33 9,720 3
34 9,720 3
35 9,693 3
36 20,706 6
37 10,920 3
38 10,~.0 3
39 9,012 3
40 9,000 3
41 15,624 5
42 13,070 4
43 11,475 3
44 14,075 4
45 19,985 6
46 23,960 8
47 10,320 3
48 10,125 3
49 10,125 3
50 9,720 3
51 9,720 3
52 13,700 4
53 9,504 3
54 .9,504 3
55 9,504 3
56 9,504 3
57 9,504 3
TIERRA INVESTMENT
P.O. Box 332
Temecula, CA. 92390
Mr. Thomas H. Ingram, Director
Department of Building and Safety
County of Riverside
1777 Atlanta Avenue, Suite No. G-5
Riverside, California 92507
SUBJECT: 0FFSITE GRADING FOR TRACT N0.23304, CLUB VALENCIA,
ON PARCEL NO. 28, TRACT NO. 3334, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA.
Dear Mr. Ingram:
Tierra investment, A California Partnership, owners of Assessors
Parcel No. 921-370-005, located in the unincorporated area of
Rancho California, County of Riverside, California. Our property
is located on Margarita Road, 1500± feet easterly of Moraga Road
and is adjacent to and northerly of a portion of the subject Tract
No. 23304.
We hereby grant permission to the Developers of said Tract No.
23304 to construct specific improvements over and upon the south-
erly 25 feet, measured horizontally of our property. The improve-
ments are shown on the Tract No. 23304 Grading Plan and Landscap-
ing Plans approved by Riverside County and are defined as follows:
1. Construct a cut slope of one vertical to one and one half
horizontal within the area of permission.
2. Construct a concrete brow ditch along the top of the slope
per the approved grading plan.
Install landscape irrigation system and landscape planting
per the approved landscape plans.
We understand that all work shall be performed in the best work-
manlike manner to the specifications of the County of Riverside,
under the supervision of a qualified Soils Engineer. The Developer
of said Tract shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion
of the work noted and that all such work shall be inspected
and approved by the appropriate Agencies of Riverside County.
It is also mutually understood that the improvements recited here-
in will be maintained by the Developer, Appel Development Corpor-
ation per their letter addressed to Tierra Investment, dated
August 24, 1989, of which a copy is attached hereto.
TIERRA
//, ..'4..., , '-
Walter B. Dixon, General
INVESTMENT, A California Partnership
Partner
Appel Development
CORPORATION
AUgust 24, 1989
Mr. Walt Dixon
Tierra Investments
41785 Enterprise Circle
Suite "D"
P.O. Box 332
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Offsite Grading of Tract No. 23304
Dear Mr. Dixon:
In response to our telephone conversation of 8/23/89 regarding the
above referenced project, this letter is to provide you with
assurances you desire.
It is our intention and obligation to fully landscape and maintain
the slope we will construct on your property in conjunction with
our development.
The second concern you expressed had to do with our providing a
sewer easement.and stub as discussed in the past. Please be
advised that this provision is being submitted to the sewer
district and is designed to meet their design standards.
This letter shall serve as our agreement and obligation to provide
the mentioned sewer stub and provide slope maintenance including
landscape and irrigation indefinitely.
If the above is satisfactory, please sign the letter of permission
to grade and return it to our office immediately so we can finalize
our grading documents with the County of Riverside.
Please do not hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance
or answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,.-
APPEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
/
Lawrence R. Doherty
Vice President Development
LD/s j c/FX